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

1. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O’Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:125-39.10.1093/ejo/14.2.125Search in Google Scholar

2. 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;14:180-7.10.1093/ejo/14.3.180Search in Google Scholar

3. Committee BOSCS. Guidelines for Primary Care Trusts and Local Health Boards to assess the treatment outcome of patients treated by specialist orthodontists or dentists using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index. 2009.Search in Google Scholar

4. Firestone AR, Beck FM, Beglin FM, Vig KW. Evaluation of the peer assessment rating (PAR) index as an index of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:463-9.10.1067/mod.2002.128465Search in Google Scholar

5. DeGuzman L, Bahiraei D, Vig KW, Vig PS, Weyant RJ, O’Brien K. The validation of the Peer Assessment Rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Am J Orthod Den-tofacial Orthop 1995;107:172-6.10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70133-8Search in Google Scholar

6. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983;83:382-90.10.1016/0002-9416(83)90322-6Search in Google Scholar

7. Colton T. Controlled clinical trials. Am Rev Respir Dis 1974;110 Part 2:20-4.Search in Google Scholar

8. 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;24:139-47.10.1093/ortho/24.2.1399218112Search in Google Scholar

9. M N. IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology 2nd Edition. IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology Gold Book, 2. 1997 (2nd Edition).Search in Google Scholar

10. Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part I. J Orthod 2004;31:62-70.10.1179/14653120422501134615071154Search in Google Scholar

11. Shastry S, Park JH. Evaluation of the use of digital study models in postgraduate orthodontic programs in the United States and Canada. Angle Orthod 2014;84:62-7.10.2319/030813-197.1868304723742197Search in Google Scholar

12. Rheude B, Sadowsky PL, Ferriera A, Jacobson A. An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod 2005;75:300-4.Search in Google Scholar

13. Whetten JL, Williamson PC, Heo G, Varnhagen C, Major PW. Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:485-91.10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.02217045148Search in Google Scholar

14. Mayers M, Firestone AR, Rashid R, Vig KW. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:431-4.10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.03516214623Search in Google Scholar

15. Institution BS. British Standards Glossary of Dental Terms BS - 4492 London: BSI; 1983.Search in Google Scholar

16. Carstensen B. Comparing and predicting between several methods of measurement. Biostatistics 2004;5:399-413.10.1093/biostatistics/kxg043Search in Google Scholar

17. Brown R, Richmond S. An update on the analysis of agreement for orthodontic indices. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:286-91.10.1093/ejo/cjh078Search in Google Scholar

18. King GJ, McGorray SP, Wheeler TT, Dolce C, Taylor M. Comparison of peer assessment rat-ings (PAR) from 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols for Class II malocclusions. Am J Or-thod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:489-96.10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00045-3Search in Google Scholar

19. Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SA. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Defic 1981;86:127-37.Search in Google Scholar

20. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd Edition. New York: Miley; 1981.Search in Google Scholar

21. Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a threedimensional imaging sys-tem for archiving dental study models. J Orthod 2003;30:219-23.10.1093/ortho/30.3.219Search in Google Scholar

22. Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Denny JM, Fischer JR Jr. A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod 2001;71:351-7.Search in Google Scholar

23. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:346-52.10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.044Search in Google Scholar

24. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:101-5.10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00152-5Search in Google Scholar

25. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:794-803.10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.02316769498Search in Google Scholar

26. Malik OH, Abdi-Oskouei M, Mandall NA. An alternative to study model storage. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:156-9.10.1093/ejo/cjn07119028672Search in Google Scholar

27. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.Search in Google Scholar

28. Andrews CK. Validity and reliability of peer assessment rating index scores of digital and plaster models. Thesis. The Ohio State University, 2008.Search in Google Scholar