Poorterman J H, Verheij J G, Kieft J A, Eijkman M A
Vakgroep Sociale Tandheelkunde en Voorlichtingskunde, Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam (ACTA), Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam.
Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1997 Jun;104(6):214-8.
It is well-known that dentists differ in judgement when confronted with the same clinical situation. To study this phenomenon, 2 groups of 5 general dental practitioners have assessed the material of 20 patients, each consisting of a set of 2 bite wing radiographs and 2 photographs of the (pre)molar region. The teeth were examined for caries and the quality of the restorations, supported by a protocol which was mailed in advance. The examiner variability was expressed as Cohen's kappa, calculated per pair of GDPs and subsequently averaged per group. The interexaminer agreement was fair for the diagnosis of caries and was highest for the assessment of approximal caries on the bite wing radiograph. The agreement with respect to the quality assessment of dental restorations proved to be poor on average. The intra-examiner agreement varied widely between examiners. No difference could be established between the groups. It can be concluded that, without training and calibration, a sufficient inter- and intra-examiner agreement among GDPs is difficult to reach. Consequently, a substantial variation is found in the individual GDP's restorative treatment planning.
