Wiebke Schröder | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Examiner differences in the assessment of different malocclusions.

BACKGROUND: In the current discussion about ensuring treatment quality and reducing costs in the health sector, indication systems with which to determine the need for a treatment and the success of therapy are increasingly being used in orthodontics. These indication systems require the objective evaluation of malocclusions. Our objective was to determine the examiner reliability in the assessment of various malocclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 180 adults (64 male, 116 female, aged 20-49) from the population-based Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP), malocclusions were recorded clinically and on models by calibrated examiners. An experienced orthodontist conducted the clinical examination. Another orthodontically-experienced examiner analyzed the models. To compare the model examiners, two examiners with varying degrees of orthodontic experience evaluated 60 of the 180 models as well (29 male, 31 female). One of the model examiners repeated the assessment of 60 models at a later time (intra-individual comparison). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Reliability amongst the examiners depended on which malocclusions were judged: crowding and contact point displacement showed little agreement, while cross bite, edge-to-edge bite, deep bite and enlarged overjet revealed greater agreement. Comparison between the clinical examination and model analysis (kappa median 0.57) revealed the greatest differences between the examiners. Comparison of the three model examiners also showed differences. The contrast to the orthodontically least experienced examiner was greater (kappa median 0.61 and 0.62) than the divergence between the two orthodontically more experienced examiners (kappa median 0.70). The intra-individual examiner comparison revealed the smallest differences (kappa median 0.82).

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Influence of examiner differences on KIG-classification when assessing malocclusions.

OBJECTIVE: Indication systems such as the German KIG system (Kieferorthopädische Indikationsgruppen = Orthodontic Indication Groups) presuppose the objective assessment of underlying malocclusions. In this survey, we aimed to investigate the degree of agreement among the findings of several examiners in the assessment of different malocclusions and their classification according to the KIG system. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Calibrated examiners assessed in the clinical evaluation and on plaster models orthodontic malocclusions in 180 adults (aged 20-49, 64 male, 116 female) from the population-based Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP). Clinical examination was carried out by an experienced orthodontist, and the plaster models were also analysed by an examiner experienced in orthodontics. To compare inter- and intra-individual model examiners, we had two examiners with differing orthodontic experience carry out additional analyses of 60 of the 180 models (29 male, 31 female). RESULTS: The examiner differences yielded various KIG classifications and hence different assessments (i. e., whether KIG case-costs should be borne by health insurance). The comparison "clinical examination versus model analysis" revealed differences regarding 16.7% of the study participants in the assessment of whether the expense would be borne by the statutory health insurance fund. At 5.0-8.3%, the number of participants whose assessments had differed was much smaller in the inter-individual comparison of model-examiners and was smallest (at 3.3-6.7%) when comparison was made between intra-individual assessments (by a sole examiner). With regard to overall malocclusion assessment, the greatest examiner differences were again revealed when comparing the clinical examination with the model analysis (median kappa 0.57). The model-examiner comparison revealed larger differences among examiners with less orthodontic experience (median kappa 0.61 and 0.62) than the comparison between examiners with orthodontic experience (median kappa 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: There can occasionally be considerable examiner differences in the classification of participants according to orthodontic indication groups and hence varying assessments of whether such persons are KIG cases or not. Various means of data collection (clinical evaluation-plaster models) in the assessment of malocclusions by multiple examiners and by those with little orthodontic experience may negatively influence agreement among examiners.

Female↗