Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Treatment Outcome Assessment for Class I Malocclusion Patients: Peer Assessment Rating versus American Board of Orthodontics-Objective Grading System

  • Hong, Mihee (Department of Orthodontics, The Catholic University of Korea, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital) ;
  • Kook, Yoon-Ah (Department of Orthodontics, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital) ;
  • Baek, Seung-Hak (Department of Orthodontics, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Myeng-Ki (Department of Dental Services Management and Informatics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2014.04.27
  • Accepted : 2014.06.03
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the degree of coincidence between the peer assessment rating (PAR) index and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS) in the assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes of Class I malocclusion cases. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 26 Class I patients. The PAR index was used for evaluation of pre-(T0) and posttreatment (T1) casts, and the ABO-OGS for assessment of T1 casts. If there was a reduction in PAR scores from T0 to T1 of more than 30%, the label 'PAR+' was given to the case, and if not, it was labeled 'PAR-'. If the ABO-OGS was less than 27, the label 'OGS+' was given to the case and if not, it was labeled 'OGS-'. 'A PAR-only qualified group' (PAR+), 'ABO-OGS-only qualified group' (OGS+), 'both indices qualified group' (PAR+/OGS+), and 'both indices disqualified group' (PAR-/OGS-) were compared with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, sensitivity/specifi city test and Spearman's correlation test. Result: PAR scores for T0, T1, and percentage reduction were 21.1, 6.4, and 65.9%, respectively, and 35.4 for ABOOGS. The distribution of the 'PAR+/OGS+', 'PAR+', and 'PAR-/OGS-' group was 19.3%, 76.9%, and 3.8%, respectively. The T0-PAR, T1-PAR and PAR point reductions for the 'PAR+' group were significantly higher than those of 'PAR+/OGS+' groups (23.1 vs. 15.6; 6.7 vs. 4.6; and 16.5 vs. 11.0; all P<0.05). However, the PAR-percentage reduction and treatment duration between the two groups were not statistically different (70.0% vs. 67.0%, P=0.4325; 24.1 months vs. 25.0 months, P=0.4057). The T1-ABO-OGS score for 'PAR+' group was significantly higher than that of the 'PAR+/OGS+' groups (38.2 vs. 24.0, P<0.001). Conclusion: Since the fraction of the 'PAR+/OGS+' group was less than 20% and there was no significant correlation between PAR-percentage reduction and T1-ABO-OGS, development of a new index system for the accurate evaluation of treatment outcome is needed.

Keywords

References

  1. Huang GJ, Richmond S, Vig KW. Evidence-based Orthodontics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
  2. Turbill EA, Richmond S, Andrews M. A preliminary comparison of the DPB's grading of completed orthodontic cases with the PAR index. Br J Orthod. 1994; 21: 279-85. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.21.3.279
  3. Deguchi T, Honjo T, Fukunaga T, Miyawaki S, Roberts WE, Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical assessment of orthodontic outcomes with the peer assessment rating, discrepancy index, objective grading system, and comprehensive clinical assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127: 434-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.030
  4. Roberts CT, Richmond S. The design and analysis of reliability studies for the use of epidemiological and audit indices in orthodontics. Br J Orthod. 1997; 24: 139-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/24.2.139
  5. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Bills ED. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114: 589-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70179-9
  6. Onyeaso CO, Begole EA. Relationship between in dex of complexity, outcome and need, dental aes thetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 248-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.045
  7. Fox NA, Chapple JR. Measuring failure of orthodontic treatment: a comparison of outcome indicators. J Orthod. 2004; 31: 319-22. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225202635
  8. Kim HH, Lee KH, Kim JC. The treatment change of PAR (peer assessment rating) index and cephalometric measurements in Class I malocclusion patients. Korean J Orthod. 1999; 29: 277-84.
  9. Cheong SB, Park YG. Evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcomes and post-treatment changes by the PAR index. Korean J Orthod. 2001; 31: 393-401.
  10. Son WS, Cha KS, Chung DH, Kim TW. Quantitative evaluation and affecting factors of post-treatment relapse tendency. Korean J Orthod. 2011; 41: 154-63. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.3.154
  11. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The PAR index (peer assessment rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod. 1992; 14: 180-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.3.180
  12. Case preparation [Internet]. St. Louis (MO): The American Board of Orthodontics [cited 2014 Apr 25]. Available from: http://www.americanboardortho.com/professionals/clinicalexam/casereportpresentation/preparation/measurementinstruments.aspx
  13. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The development of the PAR index (peer assessment rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 1992; 14: 125-39. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.2.125
  14. Grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs [Internet]. St. Louis (MO): The American Board of Orthodontics [cited 2014 Apr 25]. Available from: http://www.americanboardortho.com/professionals/downloads/Grading%20System%20Casts-Radiographs.pdf

Cited by

  1. The Improvement and Completion of Outcome index: A new assessment system for quality of orthodontic treatment vol.46, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.4.199