Role of lateral cephalograms in assessing severity and difficulty of orthodontic cases.

To assess the role of lateral cephalometric films in the evaluation of orthodontic patients, 16 certified orthodontists examined 80 sets of dental casts and lateral cephalograms. The patients included 5 subgroups: Class I with mild crowding, Class II Division 2, Class III, open bites, and bimaxillary protrusion. A 5-point Visual Analogue Scale was used to assess the degree of severity and difficulty of each case. Severity was defined as the degree of deviation from ideal occlusion, while difficulty was defined as the probability of attaining an ideal occlusion when all treatment options were available. The examiner then chose one or more of the following treatment options: growth modification, extraction, nonextraction, and surgery. All examiners scored the degree of severity and difficulty of each case with casts only at Time 1 (T1), then with casts and cephalograms at Time 2 (T2). The observed ratings from the Visual Analogue Scale were scored by using the Rasch model, which transforms the nonlinear ordinal ratings to a linear interval scale. Intersubgroup differences and differences between T1 and T2 difficulty and severity were assessed by using a 5 x 2 repeated measures analysis of variance. A paired t test examined the amount and direction of the differences between T1 and T2 of each subgroup. Multiple contingency tables were used to compare treatment option changes between all subgroups at each time. Severity and difficulty scores highly correlated. Analysis of variance showed significant differences among subgroups for both severity and difficulty; however, there were significant time differences for severity only. Paired t tests revealed a small increase in severity for the bimaxillary protrusive group and small but significant decreases for the subgroups Class II Division 2 and Class III when cephalograms were added. The multicontingency table analysis demonstrated that a significant number of examiners did change their treatment options at T2 for bimaxillary protrusive, nonextraction, and Class II Division 2 patients. It was concluded that lateral cephalometric films showed a significant influence on a clinician's determination on severity of some types of orthodontic malocclusions.

[1]  Georg Rasch,et al.  Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests , 1981, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  H. L. Draker Handicapping labio-lingual deviations: A proposed index for public health purposes☆☆☆ , 1960 .

[3]  B. Wright,et al.  Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. , 1989, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[4]  S. McGorray,et al.  Evaluation of orthodontists' perception of treatment need and the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. , 1999, The Angle orthodontist.

[5]  J M Linacre,et al.  Rasch analysis of Visual Analog Scale measurements before and after treatment of Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome in women. , 1995, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[6]  K. Vig,et al.  The validation of the Peer Assessment Rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. , 1995, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[7]  J. Salzmann Handicapping malocclusion assessment to establish treatment priority. , 1968, American Journal of Orthodontics.

[8]  C. J. Summers The occlusal index: a system for identifying and scoring occlusal disorders. , 1971, American journal of orthodontics.

[9]  G. Masters,et al.  Rating scale analysis , 1982 .

[10]  Training Dental Nurses in the use of the PAR Index: A Pilot Study , 1996, British journal of orthodontics.

[11]  C D Stephens,et al.  The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. , 1992, European journal of orthodontics.