Undergraduate Student. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Department of Preventive Dental Science, Division of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
J World Fed Orthod. 2022 Jun;11(3):83-89. doi: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2021.11.004. Epub 2022 Jan 6.
The objectives of this study were to determine whether rating systems, such as the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) can be applied to intraoral photographs.
Models and photographs of 50 cases were graded by 4 raters, and a 20% repeat of randomized cases was completed 2 weeks later. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess inter- and intra-rater agreements, as well as the level of agreement between the ratings on models and photographs.
The intra- and inter-rater agreements were considered good to excellent. The paired mean difference (model minus photo) for the PAR index and the ABO Discrepancy Index as a total was 2.405 and 1.156, respectively. Overjet was the subdomain that produced the highest differences between photos and models. The ABO- Discrepancy Index method on photographs was more reliable than the PAR index when grading pre-treatment and more-severe malocclusions.
Both methods can be used, but the choice depends on the purpose of the evaluation, and on consideration of the weaknesses and strengths of each relating to its use on photographs.
本研究旨在确定评分系统（如同行评估评分（PAR）和美国正畸委员会客观分级系统（ABO-OGS））是否可应用于口内照片。
由 4 位评估者对 50 例模型和照片进行评分，2 周后对随机抽取的 20%的病例进行重复评分。采用组内相关系数（ICC）评估评估者之间以及模型和照片评分之间的一致性。
评估者内和评估者间的一致性被认为是良好到极好的。PAR 指数和 ABO 差异指数的配对均值差异（模型减去照片）分别为 2.405 和 1.156。覆盖深度是照片和模型之间差异最大的亚域。在对治疗前和严重错畸形进行分级时，ABO-差异指数方法比 PAR 指数更可靠。
两种方法均可使用，但选择取决于评估的目的，并考虑到每种方法在照片上使用的优缺点。
