Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models.

INTRODUCTION The peer assessment rating (PAR) index is a valid and reliable tool for measuring malocclusion on plaster models, but it has not been shown to be valid and reliable when used to score computer-based digital models. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the PAR index is a valid and reliable measure on digital models. METHODS The study sample consisted of 48 pairs of plaster and digital pretreatment models. One examiner, calibrated in the PAR index, scored the digital and plaster models. The overall PAR scores were examined for reliability and validity by using analysis of variance and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Reliability of the components of the PAR score was compared with values originally presented by Richmond et al (1992). RESULTS No significant differences were found between overall PAR scores of plaster and digital models (P = .82), and scores were highly correlated (ICC = 0.95; lower confidence boundary (LCB) = 0.92; upper confidence boundary (UCB) = 0.97). Intraexaminer reliability was excellent for both plaster models (ICC = 0.98; LCB = 0.97; UCB = 0.99) and digital models (ICC = 0.96; LCB = 0.94; UCB = 0.98). Reliability of all components of the PAR score generated on digital models except for buccal occlusion was similar to those of Richmond et al. CONCLUSION PAR scores derived from digital models are valid and reliable measures of occlusion.

[1]  Bernard R. Rosner,et al.  Fundamentals of Biostatistics. , 1992 .

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

[3]  H. Pancherz,et al.  Efficiency of early and late Class II Division 1 treatment. , 2002, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[4]  K. Vig,et al.  Evaluation of the peer assessment rating (PAR) index as an index of orthodontic treatment need. , 2002, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[5]  Mark Beatrice,et al.  Vertical facial pattern and orthodontic stability Part II: Facial axis changes and stability , 2000, Australian orthodontic journal.

[6]  J. Bartko,et al.  Simulation study of a panel of reliability indicators applied to paired measurements , 1994, American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council.

[7]  K. Vig,et al.  Orthodontic process and outcome: efficacy studies--strategies for developing process and outcome measures: a new era in orthodontics. , 1998, Clinical Orthodontics and Research.

[8]  Oded Zilberman,et al.  Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[9]  K. Vig,et al.  Factors associated with orthodontists' assessment of difficulty. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[10]  J. Fischer,et al.  A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[11]  S. McGorray,et al.  Comparison of peer assessment ratings (PAR) from 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols for Class II malocclusions. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[12]  K. Vig,et al.  Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in educational and private practice settings. , 2002, Journal of Dental Education.

[13]  Allen R Firestone,et al.  The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[14]  S Richmond,et al.  The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. , 1992, European journal of orthodontics.

[15]  Thomas J Cangialosi,et al.  Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[16]  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.