Merve Çakır, Serpil Çokakoğlu, Alp İlgenli

Klinik Deneyimin Servikal Vertebral Maturasyonun Değerlendirilmesine Etkisi: El-bilek Radyografileri Gerekli Midir?

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı el-bilek radyografilerinin servikal vertebral maturasyon (SVM) yöntemine dayalı büyüme ve gelişimin değerlendirilmesindeki rolünü değerlendirmek ve klinik deneyim düzeyinin karar verme sürecine etkisi olup olmadığını belirlemektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmamızda 11 ila 16 yaşları arasındaki 48 hastanın lateral sefalometrik ve el-bilek radyografileri değerlendirildi. Klinisyenler ilk olarak lateral sefalometrik görüntülere (T1) dayalı olarak SVM yöntemi ile büyüme evresini belirlediler. Daha sonra aynı anketi, lateral sefalometrik görüntülerin her birini el-bilek radyografileri ile değerlendirerek doldurdular (T2). Anketin sonunda klinisyenler deneyim düzeylerine göre gruplara ayrıldı. Gözlemci içi güvenilirliği değerlendirmek için sınıf içi korelasyon katsayıları hesaplandı. Verilerin gruplar arası karşılaştırmaları için ki-kare ve Fisher-Freeman-Halton testleri kullanıldı. Bulgular: Tüm değerlendiriciler için uyum yüzdesi T2’den sonra minimum düzeyde değişti. En deneyimli klinisyenler, her iki değerlendirmede de toplamda SVMaşamaları için en tutarlı kararları gösterdiler. CS4 ve CS5 haricindeki diğer aşamalar için değişen kararların yüzdeleri gruplar arasında önemli bir farklılık göstermedi. T1’den T2’ye her grupta CS3 için uyum oranları arasında önemli farklılıklar gözlendi (p

The Effect of Clinical Experience on Cervical Vertebral Maturation Assessment: Is a Hand-wrist Radiograph Necessary?

Objective: To evaluate the role of hand-wrist radiographs (HWRs) in the assessment of growth and development based on the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method and to determine whether clinical experience levels would affect the decision-making process. Materials and Methods: The lateral cephalometric radiographs and HWRs of 48 patients aged 11 to 16 years were assessed in this study. The clinicians first determined the growth stage by the CVM method based on lateral cephalometric images (T1). Then, the clinicians filled out the same questionnaire with HWRs on each question (T2). Subsequently, the clinicians were divided into groups according to their experience levels. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate intraobserver agreements. The data were analyzed with chi-square or Fisher-Freeman-Halton Exact tests for intergroup comparisons. Results: For all evaluators, the percentage of agreement changed minimally after T2. The most experienced clinicians demonstrated the most consistent decisions for overall CVM stages at both evaluations. Concerning each stage, the percentages of changed decisions showed no significant differences between the groups except for stages CS4 and CS5. There were significant differences between the rates of agreement for CS3 in each group from T1 to T2 (p

PDF

___

1. Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107: 58-66.
2. Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Major PW. Use of skeletal maturation based on hand-wrist radiographic analysis as a predictor of facial growth: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 118-24.
3. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. The cervical vertebral maturation method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 2005; 11: 119-29.
4. Cericato GO, Bittencourt MAV, Paranhos LR. Validity of the assessment method of skeletal maturation by cervical vertebrae: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140270.
5. Rainey BJ, Burnside G, Harrison JE. Reliability of cervical vertebral maturation staging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150: 98-104.
6. Cunha AC, Cevidanes LH, Sant’Anna EF, Guedes FR, Luiz RR, McNamara JA, et al. Staging hand-wrist and cervical vertebrae images: a comparison of reproducibility. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20170301.
7. Uysal T, Ramoglu SI, Basciftci FA, Sari Z. Chronologic age and skeletal maturation of the cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist: is there a relationship? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 622-8.
8. Santiago RC, de Miranda Costa LF, Vitral RWF, Fraga MR, Bolognese AM, Maia LC. Cervical vertebral maturation as a biologic indicator of skeletal maturity. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 1123-31.
9. Szemraj A, Wojtaszek-Słomińska A, Racka-Pilszak B. Is the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method effective enough to replace the hand-wrist maturation (HWM) method in determining skeletal maturation? A systematic review. Eur J Radiol 2018; 102: 125-8.
10. Predko-Engel A, Kaminek M, Langova K, Kowalski P, Fudalej PS. Reliability of the cervical vertebrae maturation (CVM) method. Bratisl Lek Listy 2015; 116: 222-6.
11. Perinetti G, Primozic J, Sharma B, Cioffi I, Contardo L. Cervical vertebral maturation method and mandibular growth peak: a longitudinal study of diagnostic reliability. Eur J Orthod 2018; 40: 666-72.
12. Zhao XG, Lin J, Jiang JH, Wang Q, Ng SH. Validity and reliability of a method for assessment of cervical vertebral maturation. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 229-34.
13. Perinetti G, Caprioglio A, Contardo L. Visual assessment of the cervical vertebral maturation stages: A study of diagnostic accuracy and repeatability. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 951-6.
14. Rongo R, Valleta R, Bucci R, Bonetti GA, Michelotti A, D'Antò V. Does clinical experience affect the reproducibility of cervical vertebrae maturation method? Angle Orthod 2015; 85: 841-7.
15. Khajah A, Tadinada A, Allareddy V, Kuo CL, Nanda R, Uribe F. Influence of type of radiograph and levels of experience and training on reproducibility of the cervical vertebral maturation method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020; 157: 228-39.
16. Gabriel DB, Southard KA, Qian F, Marshall SD, Franciscus RG, Southard TE. Cervical vertebrae maturation method: poor reproducibility. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 478- 80.
17. Khanum A, Kalia A, Nene S, Mirdeghan N, Joshi J, Mithani R. Visual assessment of cervical vertebral maturation stages: A study of diagnostic accuracy and repeatability. J Oral Dent Health Res 2019; 1: 1-5.
18. Nestman TS, Marshall SD, Qian F, Holton N, Franciscus RG, Southard TE. Cervical vertebrae maturation method morphologic criteria: poor reproducibility. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: 182-8.
19. McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. The cervical vertebral maturation method: A user's guide. Angle Orthod 2018; 88: 133-43.