| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 臨床牙醫學研究所 === 106 === Many scoring indexes had developed for evaluating the outcomes of orthodontic treatment. Such an ideal tool needs reliability and validity to make the judgement equal. An ideal index for assessing the treatment outcomes should not be impacted by examiner’s subjective opinion. If different examiners gave the same results by following the same rules, that meant the index was a reliable tool for assessment. In this study, we assessed the reliability of the Taiwan Board of Orthodontics Grading System(TBO-OGS) and American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System(ABO-OGS). And we want to analyze the results of the examiners with different training background.
Three general dentists, three first-year graduate students under orthodontics training, and three certificated orthodontists were recruited into the study, total 9 examiners. We randomly selected 36 patients who completed orthodontic treatment in National Taiwan University Hospital. The case should meet the case assessment form for the board exam of the Taiwan Board of Orthodontics. Each examiner used TBO-OGS and ABO-OGS to assess the end-of-treatment dental casts and panoramic film of each patient independently. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) was conducted to evaluate the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of three examiner groups.
The results show the average scores of TBO-OGS was 30.29 ± 2.95, the average scores of ABO-OGS was 22.40 ± 6.11. As for the intra-rater reliability, there were 1 general dentist, 2 orthodontists whose ICC > 0.75 while using TBO-OGS. There were 2 graduate students, 2 orthodontists whose ICC > 0.75 while using ABO-OGS. As for the inter-rater reliability, no significant difference was found between 9 examiners.
According to the results, the average scores were not impacted by different examiners. The minimum and maximum score may be related to examiner’s personal traits. To compare between general dentists, graduate students and orthodontists, the intra-rater reliability was better in orthodontists group. The inter-rater reliability could not be calculated due to the variation of 9 examiners and the small sample size. The precision of the index may affect the reliability. If the criteria were set in a very narrow interval, it would be difficult to meet the same level at the next assessment. Thus the reliability decreased.
|
|---|
