Abstract
With the introduction of dental public health programmes throughout the world malocclusion severity and treatment priority assessments are a matter of interest to the orthodontic profession. Public health administrators have attempted to remove the subjectivity of clinical assessment by the use of objective indices of malocclusion. However, at the present time subjective assessment by orthodontists would appear to be the most satisfactory method of making treatment priority assessments for orthodontic cases. The studies which have investigated the variability of treatment priortiy scores made by examiners show approximately twenty per cent of cases produce variations in the assessments made.
Many of the studies related to examiner variability, when making treatment priority estimates, have relied upon assessments made from study models only. Recently, some studies have made reference to the fact that more extensive diagnostic records may reduce the variability of examiners’ scores when making treatment priority assessments. The literature also shows there has been little research directed at possible sex bias by examiners when making treatment priority assessments.
This project has investigated the variability in treatment priority assessments made by orthodontists, dentists and lay examiners when differing diagnostic records of each case were provided on three separate occasions. Also variations in treatment priority assessments for male and female cases have been investigated.