S Liu1, H Oh2, D W Chambers3, S Baumrind4, T Xu5. 1. First Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Orthodontics, University of the Pacific, Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Dental Practice, University of the Pacific, Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Orthodontics, Craniofacial Research Instrumentation Laboratory, University of the Pacific, Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity of the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index (ABO-DI) and Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index in evaluating malocclusion severity in Chinese orthodontic patients. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A stratified random sample of 120 orthodontic patients based on Angle classification was collected from six university orthodontic centres. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-nine orthodontists rated malocclusion severity on a five-point scale by assessing a full set of pre-treatment records for each case and listed reasons for their decision. Their judgement was then compared with ABO-DI and PAR scores determined by three calibrated examiners. RESULTS: Excellent interexaminer reliability of clinician judgement, ABO-DI and PAR index was demonstrated by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (rho= 0.995, 0.990 and 0.964, respectively). Both the ABO-DI and US-PAR index showed good correlation with clinician judgement (r=.700 and r=.707, respectively). There was variability among the different Angle classifications: the ABO-DI showed the highest correlation with clinician judgement in Class II patients (r=.780), whereas the US-PAR index showed the highest correlation with clinician judgement in Class III patients (r=.710). Both indices demonstrated the lowest correlations with clinician judgement in Class I patients. CONCLUSION: With strong interexaminer agreement, the panel consensus was used for validating the ABO-DI and US-PAR index for malocclusion severity. Overall, the ABO-DI and US-PAR index were reliable for measuring malocclusion severity with significantly variable weightings for different Angle classifications. Further modification of the indices for different Angle classification may be indicated.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity of the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index (ABO-DI) and Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index in evaluating malocclusion severity in Chinese orthodontic patients. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A stratified random sample of 120 orthodontic patients based on Angle classification was collected from six university orthodontic centres. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-nine orthodontists rated malocclusion severity on a five-point scale by assessing a full set of pre-treatment records for each case and listed reasons for their decision. Their judgement was then compared with ABO-DI and PAR scores determined by three calibrated examiners. RESULTS: Excellent interexaminer reliability of clinician judgement, ABO-DI and PAR index was demonstrated by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (rho= 0.995, 0.990 and 0.964, respectively). Both the ABO-DI and US-PAR index showed good correlation with clinician judgement (r=.700 and r=.707, respectively). There was variability among the different Angle classifications: the ABO-DI showed the highest correlation with clinician judgement in Class IIpatients (r=.780), whereas the US-PAR index showed the highest correlation with clinician judgement in Class III patients (r=.710). Both indices demonstrated the lowest correlations with clinician judgement in Class I patients. CONCLUSION: With strong interexaminer agreement, the panel consensus was used for validating the ABO-DI and US-PAR index for malocclusion severity. Overall, the ABO-DI and US-PAR index were reliable for measuring malocclusion severity with significantly variable weightings for different Angle classifications. Further modification of the indices for different Angle classification may be indicated.