Sarah Le Roch1, Frédéric Rouche1, Fabien Valet2, Philippe Bouchard1,3. 1. Department of Periodontology, Service of Odontology, Rothschild Hospital, AP-HP, Paris 7-Denis Diderot University, U.F.R of Odontology, Paris, France. 2. DenomX Conseil, Eaubonne, France. 3. EA 2496, Paris 5 Descartes University, U.F.R. of Odontology, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The ESCAPE multicentre survey was designed to (a) compare the agreement of three relevant aesthetic scoring systems among different centres, and (b) evaluate the reproducibility of each question of the questionnaires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: EFP centres (n = 14) were involved in an e-survey. Forty-two participants (28 teachers, 14 postgraduate students) were asked to score the one-year aesthetic outcomes of photographs using the Before-After Scoring System (BASS), the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the Root coverage Esthetic Score (RES). Mean values of kappa statistics performed on each question were provided to resume global agreement of each method. RESULTS: Between teachers, a difference of kappa ≥ 0.41 (p = .01) was found for BASS (75%) and PES (57%). Similarly, RES (84%) and PES (57%) were different (p < .001). No difference was found between BASS (75%) and RES (84%). No difference was found between students, whatever the scoring system. Questions of each scoring system showed differences in their reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this study indicate that BASS and RES scoring systems are reproducible tools to evaluate aesthetic after root coverage therapies between different centres. Among the various variables, lack of scar, degree of root coverage, colour match and gingival margin that follows the CEJ show the best reliability.
OBJECTIVE: The ESCAPE multicentre survey was designed to (a) compare the agreement of three relevant aesthetic scoring systems among different centres, and (b) evaluate the reproducibility of each question of the questionnaires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: EFP centres (n = 14) were involved in an e-survey. Forty-two participants (28 teachers, 14 postgraduate students) were asked to score the one-year aesthetic outcomes of photographs using the Before-After Scoring System (BASS), the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the Root coverage Esthetic Score (RES). Mean values of kappa statistics performed on each question were provided to resume global agreement of each method. RESULTS: Between teachers, a difference of kappa ≥ 0.41 (p = .01) was found for BASS (75%) and PES (57%). Similarly, RES (84%) and PES (57%) were different (p < .001). No difference was found between BASS (75%) and RES (84%). No difference was found between students, whatever the scoring system. Questions of each scoring system showed differences in their reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this study indicate that BASS and RES scoring systems are reproducible tools to evaluate aesthetic after root coverage therapies between different centres. Among the various variables, lack of scar, degree of root coverage, colour match and gingival margin that follows the CEJ show the best reliability.