Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2019 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1

Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index as an Alternative for Orthodontic Treatment Need Decision in Relation to Angle Classification

Pages
1–5
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

For the total sample, the optimum cut-off PAR score was 14 in relation to DAI assessment.The cut-off scores for Class I, II, and III malocclusions were 13, 11, and 16, respectively, but considering psychosocial aspects, the rec-ommended score is 14 for Class III.Conclusion: The PAR index can be considered to have an acceptable level of validity for the assessment of orthodontic treatmentneed regarding Angle classification.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study aimed to determine cut-off points for the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index in relation with Angle classifica-tion to use as an alternative index for the treatment need assessment.Methods: This study included 607 orthodontic patients aged between 9 and 18 years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The receiveroperating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the PAR index in relation to treatment need assessed by DAI.Results: The mean PAR scores for Class I, II, and III malocclusions and total sample were 17.54, 14.27, 18.7, and 20.04, respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For the total sample, the optimum cut-off PAR score was 14 in relation to DAI assessment.The cut-off scores for Class I, II, and III malocclusions were 13, 11, and 16, respectively, but considering psychosocial aspects, the rec-ommended score is 14 for Class III.Conclusion: The PAR index can be considered to have an acceptable level of validity for the assessment of orthodontic treatmentneed regarding Angle classification.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: This study aimed to determine cut-off points for the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index in relation with Angle classifica-tion to use as an alternative index for the treatment need assessment.Methods: This study included 607 orthodontic patients aged between 9 and 18 years. Angle classification, PAR, and dental aestheticindex (DAI) scores were determined. The DAI was used as the gold standard to evaluate the subjects for treatment need. The receiveroperating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the PAR index in relation to treatment need assessed by DAI.Results: The mean PAR scores for Class I, II, and III malocclusions and total sample were 17.54, 14.27, 18.7, and 20.04, respectively. Theareas under the ROC of PAR scores in relation to the DAI assessment were found as 68.3% for the total sample, 66.6% Class I, 59.2%Class II, and 71.3% Class III malocclusions. For the total sample, the optimum cut-off PAR score was 14 in relation to DAI assessment.The cut-off scores for Class I, II, and III malocclusions were 13, 11, and 16, respectively, but considering psychosocial aspects, the rec-ommended score is 14 for Class III.Conclusion: The PAR index can be considered to have an acceptable level of validity for the assessment of orthodontic treatmentneed regarding Angle classification.

🔖

Cite This Article

TANER, R. L., UZUNER, F. D., ÇAYLAK, Y., GENÇTÜRK, Z., KAYGISIZ, E. (2019). Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index as an Alternative for Orthodontic Treatment Need Decision in Relation to Angle Classification. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1, 1–5. https://ajindex.com/articles/375014

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Perillo L, Masucci C, Ferro F, Apicella D, Baccetti T. Prevalence of or- thodontic treatment need in southern Italian schoolchildren. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 49-53. [CrossRef ] Hamamci N, Basaran G, Uysal E. Dental Aesthetic Index scores and perception of personal dental appearance among Turkish universi- ty students. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 168-73. [CrossRef ] Nalcaci R, Demirer S, Ozturk F, Altan BA, Sokucu O, Bostanci V. The relationship of orthodontic treatment need with periodontal sta- tus, dental caries, and sociodemographic factors. Scientific World Journal 2012; 498012. [CrossRef ] Ajayi EO. Normative and self-perceived orthodontic treatment need in Nigerian school children. Acta Odontol Scand 2015; 73: 364-7. [CrossRef ] Jawad Z, Bates C, Hodge T. Who needs orthodontic treatment? Who gets it? And who wants it? Br Dent J 2015; 218: 99-103. [CrossRef ] Manzanera D, Montiel-Company JM, Almerich-Silla JM, Gandia JL. Diagnostic agreement in the assessment of orthodontic treatment need using the dental aesthetic index and the index of orthodontic treatment need. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 193-8. [CrossRef ] Liu Z, McGrath C, Hägg U. Associations between orthodontic treat- ment need and oral health-related quality of life among young adults: does it depend on how you assess them? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39: 137-44. [CrossRef ] Firestone AR, Beck M, Beglin FM, Vig KWL. Validity of the index of complexity, outcome, and need. Angle Orthod 2002; 72: 15-20.
  2. Borzabadi-Farahani A, Borzabadi-Farahani A. Agreement between the index of complexity, outcome, and need and the dental and aesthetic components of the index of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: 233-8. [CrossRef ] World Health Organization International Collaborative Study of Oral Health Outcomes (ICS II), document 2. Oral data collection in- strument and evaluative criteria, WHO, Geneva. 1989.
  3. Beglin FM, Firestone AR, Vig KW, Beck FM, Kuthy RA, Wade D. A com- parison of the reliability and validity of 3 occlusal indexes of ortho- dontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 240-6. [CrossRef ] Jenny J, Cons NC. Comparing and contrasting two orthodontic indices, the Index of Orthodontic Treatment need and the Dental Aesthetic Index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 410-6. [CrossRef ] Tausche E, Luck O, Harzer W. Prevalence of malocclusions in the ear- ly mixed dentition and orthodontic treatment need. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 237-44. [Cro