Shayan Barootchi1,2, Leonardo Mancini3, Teresa Heck1, Giovanni Zucchelli1,4, Martina Stefanini4, Emilia Kazarian5, Giulio Rasperini1,6, Hom-Lay Wang1, Lorenzo Tavelli1,2,7. 1. Department of Periodontics & Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Center for clinical Research and evidence synthesis In oral TissuE RegeneratION (CRITERION), Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 3. Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy. 4. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 5. Private practice, Moscow, Russia and Piacenza, Italy. 6. Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Polyclinic, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Oral Medicine, Infection, and Immunity, Division of Periodontology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Along with the popularity of dental implants, implant esthetic complications are also on the rise. Recently a classification was proposed to comprehensively evaluate these conditions, with the definition of peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies (PSTDs). The aim of this article was therefore to test the inter-examiner agreement when utilizing the established rubrics among 25 standardized cases and 34 clinicians of different skill levels. METHODS: Twelve periodontal residents, 12 general dentists, and 10 periodontists participated in this study. All examiners were provided with photographs of 25 single PSTDs and asked to rate all cases based on the proposed classification at a single timepoint. Variance components analysis was conducted with multilevel regression fit in a Bayesian framework to obtain uncertainty intervals for fractional variance contributions and interclass correlation values (ICC) to assess the agreement in the rating of all cases, among all examiners, different skill-level practitioners, and to compare their responses relative to the judgment of a gold standard examiner. RESULTS: Overall, the results showed reproducible and consistent responses among the 34 examiners, and in each subgroup of skill-level, comparable to that of the gold examiner. Nevertheless, periodontists and residents were more likely to agree with the response of the gold standard examiner in their assessments of class and subclass of the PSTDs. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed PSTD classification showed reproducible assessments among all examiners, and between examiners of the same skill-level. The response of the gold standard examiner was more in line with the assessment of the periodontists and periodontal residents.
BACKGROUND: Along with the popularity of dental implants, implant esthetic complications are also on the rise. Recently a classification was proposed to comprehensively evaluate these conditions, with the definition of peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies (PSTDs). The aim of this article was therefore to test the inter-examiner agreement when utilizing the established rubrics among 25 standardized cases and 34 clinicians of different skill levels. METHODS: Twelve periodontal residents, 12 general dentists, and 10 periodontists participated in this study. All examiners were provided with photographs of 25 single PSTDs and asked to rate all cases based on the proposed classification at a single timepoint. Variance components analysis was conducted with multilevel regression fit in a Bayesian framework to obtain uncertainty intervals for fractional variance contributions and interclass correlation values (ICC) to assess the agreement in the rating of all cases, among all examiners, different skill-level practitioners, and to compare their responses relative to the judgment of a gold standard examiner. RESULTS: Overall, the results showed reproducible and consistent responses among the 34 examiners, and in each subgroup of skill-level, comparable to that of the gold examiner. Nevertheless, periodontists and residents were more likely to agree with the response of the gold standard examiner in their assessments of class and subclass of the PSTDs. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed PSTD classification showed reproducible assessments among all examiners, and between examiners of the same skill-level. The response of the gold standard examiner was more in line with the assessment of the periodontists and periodontal residents.