Comparative evaluation of nasolabial appearance of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients by professional, patient and layperson using 2 aesthetic scoring systems: A cross sectional study
Isha Duggal, Aditya Talwar, Ritu Duggal, Prabhat Kumar Chaudhari, Vilas D. Samrit
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perspective of healthcare providers (orthodontists), cleft patients and laypersons in judging nasolabial aesthetics in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip, with or without cleft palate (UCL ± P) using 2 scoring systems. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care government hospital. PATIENTS: Photographic records of 100 patients with complete UCL ± P from the age group of 5-18 years (mean age-12.2 ± 3.93 years) were included in this study. METHOD: Photographic records of 100 patients with complete UCL ± P from the age group of 5-18 years were included. A panel of 3 orthodontists, 3 laypersons and 3 cleft patients rated nasolabial aesthetics using 2 scoring systems i.e. Asher-McDade index (AMAI) and Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale (CARS). Spearman's split-half reliability, Intra-class correlation coefficient and Cronbach's alpha were computed to measure internal consistency and reliability. Inter-panel agreement between pair of groups was determined by means of Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Estimated reliability of CARS for 3 raters in each panel was in moderate agreement for orthodontists and cleft patients (0.849 and 0.810). Good repeatability and agreement were recorded with moderate to high intra-panel reliability for all parameters of both AMAI and CARS. Overall inter-panel agreement was moderate for both AMAI and CARS. Pair-wise inter-panel agreement showed a moderately positive correlation in both scales (AMAI and CARS) by cleft patients and professionals. CONCLUSION: CARS index can be reliably used for assessment of nasolabial aesthetics by cleft patients, professionals and lay persons on 2D facial photographs. Patients were more critical than clinicians and laypersons using both indices (CARS and AMAI) as they are more self-aware and conscious. Thus, a clear communication between clinician and patient regarding expectations, perception and satisfaction with surgical results is strongly recommended.