An Evaluation of Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability of Cone-beam Computed Tomography- and Two Dimensional-based Interpretations of Maxillary Canine Impactions using a Panel of Orthodontically Trained Observers.

Autor:	Al-Homsi HK; Department of Orthodontics, University of Damascus, Dental School, Damascus, Syria., Hajeer MY; Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, University of Damascus, Dental School, Damascus, Syria, Phone: 00963113141343 e-mail: myhajeer@gmail.com.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The journal of contemporary dental practice [J Contemp Dent Pract] 2015 Aug 01; Vol. 16 (8), pp. 648-56. Date of Electronic Publication: 2015 Aug 01.
DOI:	10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1736
Abstrakt:	Objectives: To assess intra- and interobserver agreement when evaluating maxillary impacted canines using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and two-dimensional (2D) images through a panel of orthodontically trained observers. Materials and Methods: An adult skull with permanent dentition was employed to perform 15 simulated maxillary canine impactions. Two sets of 2D and three-dimensional (3D) radiographic images were acquired. A panel of assessors including 11 PhD and MSc postgraduate orthodontic students evaluated maxillary impacted canines using a standard questionnaire with 11 categorical variables. Kappa (K) statistics as well as Krippendorff's alpha (α) coefficients were used for the analysis of reliability. Results: A high level of intraobserver agreement was found for both the CBCT- and 2D-based interpretations. The 11 observers demonstrated a higher interobserver agreement for the CBCT-based interpretations than that of the 2D-based interpretations (α = 0.68 and 0.38 respectively). The employed 3D classifications canines was found to be reliable among observers on CBCT images for the labiopalatal position (K = 0.87), mesiodistal position, vertical position, labiopalatal inclination and mesiodistal inclination (α = 0.95, 0.83, 0.84 and 0.92 respectively). The 2D-based interpretations were not in agreement among the 11 observers, except for the mesiodistal position (α = 0.88) and mesiodistal inclination (α = 0.88). Conclusion: The intraobserver agreement was high for both the 2D- and the CBCT-based interpretations. The interobserver agreement for the CBCT-based interpretations was remarkably higher than that of the 2D-based interpretations. The utilized CBCT-based 3D classifications for the location and inclination of maxillary impacted canines were found reliable among observers.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu