No abstract

The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reproducible index of orthodontic treatment priority. After reviewing the available literature, it was felt that this could be best achieved by using two separate components to record firstly the dental health and functional indications for treatment, and secondly the aesthetic impairment caused by the malocclusion. A modification of the index used by the Swedish Dental Health Board was used to record the need for orthodontic treatment on dental health and functional grounds. This index was modified by defining five grades, with precise dividing lines between each grade. An illustrated 10-point scale was used to assess independently the aesthetic treatment need of the patients. This scale was constructed using dental photographs of 12-year-olds collected during a large multi-disciplinary survey. Six non-dental judges rated these photographs on a visual analogue scale, and at equal intervals along the judged range, representative photographs were chosen. To test the index in use, two sample populations were defined; a group of patients referred for treatment, and a random sample of 11-12-year-old schoolchildren. Both samples were examined using the index and satisfactory levels of intra- and inter-examiner agreement were obtained.

The PAR Index has been developed to provide a single summary score for all the occlusal anomalies which may be found in a malocclusion. The score provides an estimate of how far a case deviates from normal alignment and occlusion. The difference in scores between the pre- and post-treatment cases reflects the degree of improvement and, therefore, the success of treatment. Excellent reliability was exhibited within and between examiners (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, R greater than 0.91). The components of the PAR Index have been weighted to reflect current British orthodontic opinion and is flexible in that the weightings could be changed to reflect future standards and standards currently being achieved in other countries. The PAR Index offers uniformity and standardization in assessing the outcome of orthodontic treatment.

In orthodontics it is important to objectively assess whether a worthwhile improvement has been achieved in terms of overall alignment and occlusion for an individual patient or the greater proportion of a practitioner's caseload. An objective measure is described that has been validated against the subjective opinions of 74 dentists. Using the weighted PAR Index it was revealed that at least a 30 per cent reduction in PAR score is required for a case to be considered as 'improved' and a change of 22 PAR points to bring about 'great improvement'. For a practitioner to demonstrate high standards the proportion of an individual's case load falling in the 'worse or no different' category should be negligible and the mean reduction should be as high as possible (e.g. greater than 70 per cent). If the mean percentage reduction in PAR score is high and the proportion of cases that have been 'greatly improved' is also high, this indicates that the practitioner is treating a great proportion of cases with a clear need for treatment to a high standard.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Comparison of the outcome of treatment of patients with clefts of the lip and palate can yield valuable pointers for discriminating between beneficial and harmful procedures. The development of a standardized rating scheme to assess the facial appearance of these patients is described. The rating scheme can be used in conjunction with conventional cephalometric analysis and dental arch evaluation. A method is described in which the nasolabial area is masked, thus reducing the influence of the surrounding facial features since it is shown that judges are influenced by general facial attractiveness. An ordinal scale has been evaluated in which four features of the nose and lip are assessed separately and in total by a panel of judges. The nasolabial profile, the nasal symmetry, the nasal form, and vermilion border were assessed using a 5-point scale. Acceptable pooled levels of reliability and reproducibility were obtained. This standardized rating system may be used to differentiate treatment outcome in patients from different treatment centers.