<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The validity, reliability and inter-method agreement of Peer Assessment Scores (PAR) from acrylic models and their digital analogues were assessed.</p></sec><sec><h3>Method</h3><p>Ten models of different occlusions were digitised, using a 3 Shape R700 laser scanner (Copenhagen, Denmark). Each set of models was conventionally and digitally PAR-scored twice in random order by 10 examiners. The minimum time between repeat measurements was two weeks. The repeatability was assessed by applying Carstensen’s analysis. Inter-method agreement (IEMA) was assessed by Carstensen’s limit of agreement (LOA).</p></sec><sec><h3>Results</h3><p>Intra-examiner repeatability (IER) for the unweighted and weighted data was slightly better for the conventional rather than the digital models. There was a slightly higher negative bias of -1.62 for the weighted PAR data for the digital models. IEMA for the overall weighted data ranged from −8.70 – 5.45 (95% Confidence Interval, CI). Intra-class Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for the weighted data for conventional, individual and average scenarios were 0.955 (0.906 – 0.986 CI), 0.998 (0.995 – 0.999 CI). ICC for the weighted digital data, individual and average scenarios were 0.99 (0.97 – 1.00) and 1.00. The percentage reduction required to achieve an optimal occlusion increased by 0.4% for the digital scoring of the weighted data.</p></sec><sec><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Digital PAR scores obtained from scanned plastic models were valid and reliable and, in this context, the digital semi-automated method can be used interchangeably with the conventional method of PAR scoring.</p></sec></abstract>

IntroductionThe validity, reliability and inter-method agreement of Peer Assessment Scores (PAR) from acrylic models and their digital analogues were assessed.MethodTen models of different occlusions were digitised, using a 3 Shape R700 laser scanner (Copenhagen, Denmark). Each set of models was conventionally and digitally PAR-scored twice in random order by 10 examiners. The minimum time between repeat measurements was two weeks. The repeatability was assessed by applying Carstensen’s analysis. Inter-method agreement (IEMA) was assessed by Carstensen’s limit of agreement (LOA).ResultsIntra-examiner repeatability (IER) for the unweighted and weighted data was slightly better for the conventional rather than the digital models. There was a slightly higher negative bias of -1.62 for the weighted PAR data for the digital models. IEMA for the overall weighted data ranged from −8.70 – 5.45 (95% Confidence Interval, CI). Intra-class Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for the weighted data for conventional, individual and average scenarios were 0.955 (0.906 – 0.986 CI), 0.998 (0.995 – 0.999 CI). ICC for the weighted digital data, individual and average scenarios were 0.99 (0.97 – 1.00) and 1.00. The percentage reduction required to achieve an optimal occlusion increased by 0.4% for the digital scoring of the weighted data.ConclusionDigital PAR scores obtained from scanned plastic models were valid and reliable and, in this context, the digital semi-automated method can be used interchangeably with the conventional method of PAR scoring.

Comparison of validity, repeatability and reproducibility of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) between digital and conventional study models

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

IntroductionThe validity, reliability and inter-method agreement of Peer Assessment Scores (PAR) from acrylic models and their digital analogues were...

Comparison of validity, repeatability and reproducibility of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) between digital and conventional study models

Data publikacji: 30 lip 2021

Zakres stron: 184 - 192

Otrzymano: 01 paź 2015

Przyjęty: 01 cze 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-126

© 2016 Sridhar Pasapula et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.