These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 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.
    Author: Al-Homsi HK, Hajeer MY.
    Journal: J Contemp Dent Pract; 2015 Aug 01; 16(8):648-56. PubMed ID: 26423501.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]