Poorterman J H G, Kieft J A, Eijkman M A J
Sectie Sociale Tandheelkunde en Voorlichtingskunde, Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam, Louwesweg 1 1066 EA Amsterdam.
Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 2002 Sep;109(9):355-7.
Caries diagnosis and assessment of restorations show a considerable variation between examiners. It can therefore be questioned whether a professional standard is available on this topic. In this study the judgement of general dental practitioners of the quality of restorative care and the number of adequately and inadequately treated teeth was compared to the judgement of dentists working in teaching institutes. Thirty general dental practitioners and 7 university dentists assessed occlusal photographs and bitewing radiographs of 20 patients with respect to the presence of caries and the quality of restorations. The general dental practitioners gave lower scores on a traditional schoolmark scale than the university dentists, but the latter scored more homogeneous. The agreement (Cohen's kappa) between pairs of examiners was similar for GDPs and experts. The expert group tended to have a more conservative attitude towards the level of restorative treatment to be judged. A univocal professional standard with respect to caries diagnosis and restoration assessment seems difficult to establish.
龋齿诊断和修复体评估在检查者之间存在相当大的差异。因此,关于这个主题是否存在专业标准值得质疑。在本研究中,将普通牙科医生对修复治疗质量的判断以及治疗充分和不充分的牙齿数量与在教学机构工作的牙医的判断进行了比较。30名普通牙科医生和7名大学牙医评估了20名患者的咬合照片和咬翼片,以确定龋齿的存在和修复体的质量。普通牙科医生在传统的学校评分量表上给出的分数低于大学牙医,但后者的评分更具同质性。普通牙科医生和专家之间检查者对的一致性(科恩kappa系数)相似。专家组对要判断的修复治疗水平倾向于持更保守的态度。关于龋齿诊断和修复评估的统一专业标准似乎难以确立。