Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Orthodontics 1992 14(3):180-187; doi:10.1093/ejo/14.3.180
© 1992 by European Orthodontic Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Richmond, S.
Right arrow Articles by Andrews, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Richmond, S.
Right arrow Articles by Andrews, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards

S. Richmond, W. C. Shaw, C. T. Roberts and M. Andrews

Department of Oral Health and Development, University of Manchester UK

Address for correspondence: Dr Stephen Richmond, Department of Oral Health and Development, Coupland III Building, University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester M13 6FH

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
V. Krusinskiene, P. Kiuttu, J. Julku, A.-S. Silvola, T. Kantomaa, and P. Pirttiniemi
A randomized controlled study of early headgear treatment on occlusal stability--a 13 year follow-up
Eur J Orthod, August 1, 2008; 30(4): 418 - 424.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Orthod.Home page
N. Houghton
The American Orthodontics BOS MOrth Cases Prize 2005
J. Orthod., June 1, 2008; 35(2): 96 - 109.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Dent. Res.Home page
H. Kerosuo, M. Vakiparta, M. Nystrom, and K. Heikinheimo
The Seven-year Outcome of an Early Orthodontic Treatment Strategy
J. Dent. Res., June 1, 2008; 87(6): 584 - 588.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
A. J. Bernas, D. W. Banting, and L. L. Short
Effectiveness of Phase I Orthodontic Treatment in an Undergraduate Teaching Clinic
J Dent Educ., September 1, 2007; 71(9): 1179 - 1186.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Orthod.Home page
S. J. Littlewood, D. T. Millett, B. Doubleday, D. R. Bearn, and H. V. Worthington
Orthodontic retention: A systematic review.
J. Orthod., September 1, 2006; 33(3): 205 - 212.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Orthod.Home page
J. O. H. Uys
BOS MOrth Cases Prize 2004.
J. Orthod., March 1, 2006; 33(1): 7 - 21.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Orthod.Home page
R. E. McMullan
An audit of 'early debond' cases in the national outcomes audit of patients treated with upper and lower fixed appliances by Consultant Orthodontists in the UK
J. Orthod., December 1, 2005; 32(4): 257 - 261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
P. Pirttiniemi, T. Kantomaa, R. Mantysaari, A. Pykalainen, V. Krusinskiene, T. Laitala, and J. Karikko
The effects of early headgear treatment on dental arches and craniofacial morphology: an 8 year report of a randomized study
Eur J Orthod, October 1, 2005; 27(5): 429 - 436.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
M. ACKERMAN
Evidence-based orthodontics for the 21st century
J Am Dent Assoc, February 1, 2004; 135(2): 162 - 167.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Orthod.Home page
D. O. Morris
Forestadent(R) Young Specialist Prize (1999)
J. Orthod., June 1, 2003; 30(2): 101 - 118.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Orthod.Home page
L. H. Teh, W. J. S. Kerr, and J. H. McColl
Orthodontic Treatment with Fixed Appliances in the General Dental Service in Scotland
J. Orthod., June 1, 2000; 27(2): 175 - 180.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Orthod.Home page
R. T. Lee, V. Crow, J. A. Dickson, and C. Daniels
Assessment of Clinical Case Presentations for the Membership in Orthodontics, Royal College of Surgeons of England 1995, 1996
J. Orthod., March 1, 1999; 26(1): 15 - 19.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.