Comparative correspondence analysis of the results obtained with two expert approaches for quantitative evaluation of injuries at maxillofacial region

  • P. P. Brechlychuk Uzhhorod National University
Keywords: trauma, maxillofacial area, expert evaluation

Abstract

Summary. The current problem of the expert approaches for maxillofacial injuries assessment based on the different level of their inconsistency with each other, taking into account the differences in the methodology of their implementation.

The aim of the study – to provide comparative analysis of the results obtained with the use of two expert approaches FISS (Facial Injury Severity Scale) and MFISS (Maxillofacial Injury Severity Score) during quantitative assessment of maxillofacial injuries cases.

Materials and Methods. In order to achieve the aim of the study, research was conducted with the participation of 14 patients, who were diagnosed with injuries of the maxillofacial area characterized by ​​varying severity degree. Quantitative assessment of injuries at maxillofacial area was performed using two expert approaches FISS and MFISS. During statistical processing of the results, the average values ​​of the studied indicators and levels of standard errors were obtained, the level of correlation between the studied and the derived values ​​was determined, and the authenticity of the identified discrepancies was checked.

Results and Discussion. The correspondence analysis of the results obtained with the use of two expert approaches FISS and MFISS during quantitative assessment of maxillofacial injuries cases found out that the level of correlation between the obtained indicators among patients in the study group was r=0,65 (p<0,05), with the correlation between FISS and hospitalization duration equal to r=0,71 (p<0,05) and between MFISS and hospitalization duration equal to r=0,78 (p<0.05).

Conclusions. Considering the established level of correlation between the MFISS and FISS outcome values, and the fact that there is a correlation between the results of traumatic jaw injuries evaluation and the hospitalization duration, it is possible to summarize the feasibility of further studies aimed at unification of diagnostic algorithm of injured persons in the structure of a comprehensive prediction of future rehabilitation effectiveness and trends corresponding potential level of dental health loss.

References

Kostenko, Ye.Ya., Brehlichuk, P.P., & Honcharuk-Khomyn, M.Yu. (2017). Analiz metodiv kilkisnoi otsinky poshkodzhen dilianky lytsevoho skeletu, shcho zastosovuiutsia v sudovo-stomatolohichnii praktytsi [Analysis of methods for quantifying the damage to the facial skeleton area used in forensic dentistry practice]. Sudovo-medychna ekspertyza – Forensic Medical Examination, 2, 46-52 [in Ukrainian].

Brehlichuk, P.P., Kostenko, Ye.Ya., & Honcharuk-Khomyn, M.Yu. (2017). Mozhlyvosti obiektyvizatsii parametriv travm shhelepno-lytsevoi dilianky [Possibilities of objectification of parameters of injuries of the maxillofacial area]. Sudovo-medychna ekspertyza – Forensic Medical Examination, 1, 73-78 [in Ukrainian].

Honcharuk-Komyn, M.Yu., Stetsyk, M.O., Stetsyk, A.O., Krichfalushii, S.I., Velykodna, M.V., & Boichuk, M.M. (2017). Analiz pidkhodiv do ekspertnoi otsinky zmin stomatolohichnoho statusu: sudovo-stomatolohichni ta metodolohichni aspekty [Analysis of approaches to expert assessment of changes in dental status: forensic and methodological aspects]. Molodyi vchenyi – Young Scientist, 12, 52-55 [in Ukrainian].

Brehlichuk, P.P. (2015). Sudovo-stomatolohichni aspekty otsinky travm schelepno-lytsevoi dilianku v rezultati dorozhno-transportnykh pryhod [Forensic-dental aspects of maxillofacial injuries assessments caused in road traffic accidents]. Visnyk morfolohii – Reports of Morphology, 21 (2), 480-485 [in Ukrainian].

Brehlichuk, P.P. (2018). Analytichna otsinka chastoty vynyknennia travmatychnykh urazhen shchelepno-lytsevoi dilianky v rezultati dorozhno-transportnykh pryhod [Analytical estimation of the maxillo-facial trauma frequency after road traffic accidents]. Sudovo-medychna ekspertyza – Forensic Medical Examination, 2, 106-112 [in Ukrainian].

Bagheri, S.C., Dierks, E.J., Kademani, D., Holmgren, E., Bell, R.B., Hommer, L., & Potter, B.E. (2006). Application of a facial injury severity scale in craniomaxillofacial trauma. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 64 (3), 408-414.

Chen, C., Zhang, Y., An, J. G., He, Y., & Gong, X. (2014). Comparative study of four maxillofacial trauma scoring systems and expert score. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 72 (11), 2212-2220.

Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., El-Maaytah, M., Ma, L., Liu, L., & Zhou, L.D. (2006). Maxillofacial Injury Severity Score: proposal of a new scoring system. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 35 (2), 109-114.

Sahni, V. (2016). Maxillofacial trauma scoring systems. Injury, 47 (7), 1388-1392.

Bland, J.M., & Altman, D.G. (1996). Statistics notes: measurement error and correlation coefficients. Bmj, 313 (7048), 41-42.

Peat, J., & Barton, B. (2008). Medical statistics: A guide to data analysis and critical appraisal. John Wiley & Sons.

Ramalingam, S. (2015). Role of maxillofacial trauma scoring systems in determining the economic burden to maxillofacial trauma patients in India. Journal of International Oral Health: JIOH, 7 (4), 38.

Ramalingam, S., Nooh, N., & Neelakandan, R. (2013). The impact of maxillofacial trauma scoring systems in predicting maxillofacial injury severity in developing countries. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 42 (10), 1232-1233.

Published
2019-11-08
How to Cite
Brechlychuk, P. P. (2019). Comparative correspondence analysis of the results obtained with two expert approaches for quantitative evaluation of injuries at maxillofacial region. Clinical Dentistry, (3), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.11603/2311-9624.2019.3.10569
Section
Surgical stomatology