Evaluating SWAG and Its Validity When Compared to 3D Imagery of Secondarily Grafted Cleft Sites

Abstract

Objective

To test validity of 2D Standardized Way to Assess Grafts (SWAG) ratings to assess 3D outcomes of bone grafting (ABG).

Patients

43 patients (34 UCLP, 9 BCLP) with non-syndromic complete clefts, bone-grafted at mean age 9yrs/3mos, with available post-graft occlusal radiographs and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (taken mean 4yrs/9mos post-ABG).

Main Outcome Measures

2D occlusal radiographs rated twice using SWAG by 6 calibrated raters. 12 scores were averaged and converted to a percentage reflecting bone-fill. Weighted Kappas were assessed for SWAG reliability. 3D cleft-site bone volume was calculated by 1 rater using ITK-SNAP. 13 cleft sites were re-measured by the ‘one rater’ for 3D reliability using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). 2D versus 3D ratings were compared using paired t-test, independent samples t-test, Bland-Altman and Linear Regression. Significance level was P = .5.

Results

2D reliability was 0.724 (intra-rater) and 0.546 (inter-rater). 3D reliability was 0.986. Bland-Altman plot comparing 2D vs 3D showed for 45 of 47 graft-sites were within 2 SD's. Mean % bone-fill was 64.11% with 2D and 69.06% with 3D (mean difference = 4.95%) that was a non-significant difference in both t-tests. Regression showed a statistically significant relation between the two methods (r²= 0.46; P = .0001).

Conclusion

2D SWAG systematically and non-significantly underestimated bone-fill. There was a significant correlation between 2D/3D methods. Bland-Altman analysis illustrated the similarity of the two methods. For comparisons of group (cleft treatment Centers’) bone grafting outcomes, the 2D method may suffice as a proxy for the 3D method. However, with individual variation up to 40% in 2D estimates of actual 3D volume, 2D SWAG method cannot be used in place of 3D images.

Keywords

bone grafting outcomes computerized tomography imaging

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

IPDTOC. Prevalence at birth of cleft lip with or without cleft palate: data from the International Perinatal Database of Typical Oral Clefts (IPDTOC). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(1):66‐81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/09-217

Vig

Mercado

. Overview of orthodontic care for children with cleft lip and palate, 1915-2015. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(4):543‐556. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.021

Boyne

Sands

. Secondary bone grafting of residual alveolar and palatal clefts. J Oral Surg. 1972;30(2):87‐93.

Steinberg

Padwa

Boyne

Kaban

. State of the art in oral and maxillofacial surgery: treatment of maxillary hypoplasia and anterior palatal and alveolar clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(4):283‐291. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1999_036_0284_sotaio_2.3.co_2

Murthy

Lehman

. Evaluation of alveolar bone grafting: a survey of ACPA teams. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):99‐101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/03-045.1

Jodeh

Pringle

Crisp

Rottgers

. Factors influencing timely preparation of alveolar bone grafting: a survey of the ACPA. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(9):1061‐1068. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620924935

Russell

Long

Daskalogiannakis

, et al. A multicenter study using the swag scale to compare secondary alveolar bone graft outcomes for patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(2):180‐186. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-215

Bergland

Semb

Abyholm

. Elimination of the residual alveolar cleft by secondary bone grafting and subsequent orthodontic treatment. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23(3):175–120.

Witherow

Cox

Jones

Carr

Waterhouse

. A new scale to assess radiographic success of secondary alveolar bone grafts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(3):255‐260. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(2002)0392.0.co.2.

10.

Enemark

Sindet-Pedersen

Bundgaard

. Long-term results after secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987;45(11):913‐918. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(87)90439-3

11.

Kindelan

Nashed

Bromige

. Radiographic assessment of secondary autogenous alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34(3):195‐198. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1997_034_0195_raosaa_2.3.co_2

12.

Feichtinger

Mossböck

Kärcher

. Assessment of bone resorption after secondary alveolar bone grafting using three-dimensional computed tomography: a three-year study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(2):142‐148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1597/06-047.1

13.

Quereshy

Barnum

Demko

, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography to volumetrically assess alveolar cleft defects–preliminary results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(1):188‐191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.01.027

14.

Barbosa

Wood

Pimenta

Maria de Almeida

Tyndall

. Comparison of different methods to assess alveolar cleft defects in cone beam CT images. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2016;45(2):20150332. doi:https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150332

15.

Kamperos

Theologie-Lygidakis

Tsiklakis

Iatrou

. A novel success scale for evaluating alveolar cleft repair using cone-beam computed tomography. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020;48(4):391‐398. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2020.02.003

16.

Nightingale

. Comparative reproducibility of three methods of radiographic assessment of alveolar bone grafting. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2003;25(1):35‐41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/25.1.35

17.

Russell

Long

Daskalogiannakis

, et al. Reliability of the SWAG—the standardized way to assess grafts method for alveolar bone grafting in patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(6):680‐686. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-214

18.

Ruppel

Long

Oliver

, et al. The Americleft project: a comparison of short- and longer-term secondary alveolar bone graft outcomes in two centers using the standardized way to assess grafts scale. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(5):508‐515. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/15-030

19.

Lowry

Long

Russell

, et al. The effect of earlier bone grafting, prior to orthodontic treatment, on SWAG ratings of graft outcomes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(2):208‐214. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620949433

20.

Picolli

De Menezes

Brucker

Azeredo

Deon Rizzatto

. Assessment of alveolar defect volume in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients using a free software program. Open J Stomatol. 2013;03(09):31‐36. doi:https://doi.org/10.4236/ojst.2013.39a005

21.

Yushkevich

Piven

Hazlett

, et al. User-guided 3d active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. NeuroImage. 2006;31(3):1116‐1128. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015

22.

Yushkevich

Gao

Gerig

. ITK-SNAP: an interactive tool for semi-automatic segmentation of multi-modality biomedical images. 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC); 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/embc.2016.7591443

23.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

Buchner

. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175‐191. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146

24.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

25.

Chou

Denadai

Hallac

, et al. Comparative volume analysis of alveolar defects by 3D simulation. J Clin Med. 2019;8(9):1401. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8091401

26.

Rosenstein

Long

Dado

Vinson

Alder

. Comparison of 2-D calculations from periapical and occlusal radiographs VERSUS 3-D calculations from cat scans in determining bone support for cleft-adjacent teeth following early alveolar bone grafts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34(3):199‐205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1997)0342.3.co.2.

27.

Vallaeys

Kacem

Legoux

Le Tenier

Hamitouche

Arbab-Chirani

. 3D dento-maxillary osteolytic lesion and active contour segmentation pilot study in CBCT: semi-automatic vs manual methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(8):20150079. doi:https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150079