Department of Periodontology, Service of Odontology, Rothschild Hospital, AP-HP, Paris 7-Denis Diderot University, U.F.R of Odontology, Paris, France.
DenomX Conseil, Eaubonne, France.
J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Nov;46(11):1116-1123. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13182. Epub 2019 Sep 18.
The ESCAPE multicentre survey was designed to (a) compare the agreement of three relevant aesthetic scoring systems among different centres, and (b) evaluate the reproducibility of each question of the questionnaires.
EFP centres (n = 14) were involved in an e-survey. Forty-two participants (28 teachers, 14 postgraduate students) were asked to score the one-year aesthetic outcomes of photographs using the Before-After Scoring System (BASS), the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the Root coverage Esthetic Score (RES). Mean values of kappa statistics performed on each question were provided to resume global agreement of each method.
Between teachers, a difference of kappa ≥ 0.41 (p = .01) was found for BASS (75%) and PES (57%). Similarly, RES (84%) and PES (57%) were different (p < .001). No difference was found between BASS (75%) and RES (84%). No difference was found between students, whatever the scoring system. Questions of each scoring system showed differences in their reproducibility.
The outcomes of this study indicate that BASS and RES scoring systems are reproducible tools to evaluate aesthetic after root coverage therapies between different centres. Among the various variables, lack of scar, degree of root coverage, colour match and gingival margin that follows the CEJ show the best reliability.
ESCPE 多中心调查旨在：(a) 比较三种不同中心相关美学评分系统之间的一致性；(b) 评估问卷各问题的可重复性。
EFP 中心（n=14）参与了一项电子调查。42 名参与者（28 名教师，14 名研究生）被要求使用术前-术后评分系统（BASS）、粉红美学评分（PES）和根覆盖美学评分（RES）对一年的美学结果进行评分。提供了每个问题的kappa 统计量平均值，以总结每种方法的总体一致性。
在教师中，BASS（75%）和 PES（57%）之间的kappa 值差异≥0.41（p=0.01），RES（84%）和 PES（57%）之间也存在差异（p<0.001）。BASS（75%）和 RES（84%）之间无差异。无论评分系统如何，学生之间均无差异。每个评分系统的问题在可重复性方面存在差异。
这项研究的结果表明，BASS 和 RES 评分系统是评估不同中心根覆盖治疗后美学效果的可重复工具。在各种变量中，无疤痕、根覆盖程度、颜色匹配和跟随 CEJ 的牙龈边缘显示出最佳的可靠性。
