MIDPALATAL SUTURE MATURATION ASSESSMENT BY INDIVIDUALS WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ACADEMIC DEGREE USING CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Authors

  • Taiane dos Santos Lopes Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, RJ, Brazil
  • Cinthia Oliveira Lisboa Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, RJ, Brazil
  • Ilana Oliveira Christovam Department of Orthodontics, University of Vassouras, Vassouras, RJ, Brazil
  • Claudia Trindade Mattos Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, RJ, Brazil

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29327/24816.4.3-6

Keywords:

Computed tomography X-ray Hard palate. Midpalatal suture.

Abstract

Objective: Our aim was to analyze the reliability of midpalatal suture maturation assessment in females in the final growth period using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) by an undergraduate student in two time periods (intraexaminer) and compared to an orthodontist (inter-examiner). Methods: Forty pretreatment CBCT images of 14 to 19-year-old females were selected. Images were oriented in the InVivo Dental 5.1 software. Axial slices were selected either by a researcher (preselected slices – suture-PS) or by the examiners (free scanning and slice selection – suture-FS) and each image was classified according to its
midpalatal suture maturation stage. The examiners analyzed all images individually and twice, with a two-week interval between sessions. The weighted kappa coefficient according to Landis and Kock was used to assess intra- and inter-examiner agreement. Results: The Kappa intra-examiner of the undergraduate student was 0.824 for suture-PS and 0.692 for suture-FS, and the orthodontist was 0.919 and 0.695, respectively. Inter-observer agreement was higher for suture-PS (>0.479) than for suture-FS (>0.300). Conclusion: The intraobserver kappa coefficient was very good for the undergraduate student, similar
to the orthodontist. However, inter-examiner agreement was not good, indicating a need for development in the method training.

Published

2020-03-05