Comparison of validity, repeatability and reproducibility of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) between digital and conventional study models
References
- 1. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O’Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:125-39.10.1093/ejo/14.2.125
- 2. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:180-7.10.1093/ejo/14.3.180
- 3. Committee BOSCS. Guidelines for Primary Care Trusts and Local Health Boards to assess the treatment outcome of patients treated by specialist orthodontists or dentists using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index. 2009.
- 4. Firestone AR, Beck FM, Beglin FM, Vig KW. Evaluation of the peer assessment rating (PAR) index as an index of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:463-9.10.1067/mod.2002.128465
- 5. DeGuzman L, Bahiraei D, Vig KW, Vig PS, Weyant RJ, O’Brien K. The validation of the Peer Assessment Rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Am J Orthod Den-tofacial Orthop 1995;107:172-6.10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70133-8
- 6. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983;83:382-90.10.1016/0002-9416(83)90322-6
- 7. Colton T. Controlled clinical trials. Am Rev Respir Dis 1974;110 Part 2:20-4.
- 8. Roberts CT, Richmond S. The design and analysis of reliability studies for the use of epidemiological and audit indices in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1997;24:139-47.10.1093/ortho/24.2.1399218112
- 9. M N. IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology 2nd Edition. IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology Gold Book, 2. 1997 (2nd Edition).
- 10. Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part I. J Orthod 2004;31:62-70.10.1179/14653120422501134615071154
- 11. Shastry S, Park JH. Evaluation of the use of digital study models in postgraduate orthodontic programs in the United States and Canada. Angle Orthod 2014;84:62-7.10.2319/030813-197.1868304723742197
- 12. Rheude B, Sadowsky PL, Ferriera A, Jacobson A. An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod 2005;75:300-4.
- 13. Whetten JL, Williamson PC, Heo G, Varnhagen C, Major PW. Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:485-91.10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.02217045148
- 14. Mayers M, Firestone AR, Rashid R, Vig KW. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:431-4.10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.03516214623
- 15. Institution BS. British Standards Glossary of Dental Terms BS - 4492 London: BSI; 1983.
- 16. Carstensen B. Comparing and predicting between several methods of measurement. Biostatistics 2004;5:399-413.10.1093/biostatistics/kxg043
- 17. Brown R, Richmond S. An update on the analysis of agreement for orthodontic indices. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:286-91.10.1093/ejo/cjh078
- 18. King GJ, McGorray SP, Wheeler TT, Dolce C, Taylor M. Comparison of peer assessment rat-ings (PAR) from 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols for Class II malocclusions. Am J Or-thod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:489-96.10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00045-3
- 19. Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SA. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Defic 1981;86:127-37.
- 20. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd Edition. New York: Miley; 1981.
- 21. Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a threedimensional imaging sys-tem for archiving dental study models. J Orthod 2003;30:219-23.10.1093/ortho/30.3.219
- 22. Tomassetti JJ, Taloumis LJ, Denny JM, Fischer JR Jr. A comparison of 3 computerized Bolton tooth-size analyses with a commonly used method. Angle Orthod 2001;71:351-7.
- 23. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:346-52.10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.044
- 24. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:101-5.10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00152-5
- 25. Stevens DR, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Raboud DW, Heo G, Major PW. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:794-803.10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.02316769498
- 26. Malik OH, Abdi-Oskouei M, Mandall NA. An alternative to study model storage. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:156-9.10.1093/ejo/cjn07119028672
- 27. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
- 28. Andrews CK. Validity and reliability of peer assessment rating index scores of digital and plaster models. Thesis. The Ohio State University, 2008.
Language: English
Page range: 184 - 192
Submitted on: Oct 1, 2015
Accepted on: Jun 1, 2016
Published on: Jul 30, 2021
Published by: Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Related subjects:
© 2021 Sridhar Pasapula, Martyn Sherriff, Jeremy Breckon, Dirk Bister, Stefan Abela, published by Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.