Skip Navigation



The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access published online on July 16, 2008

The European Journal of Orthodontics, doi:10.1093/ejo/cjn007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
30/5/503    most recent
cjn007v1
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 Al-Abdallah, M.
Right arrow Articles by O'Brien, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Al-Abdallah, M.
Right arrow Articles by O'Brien, K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Is the Royal London Space Analysis reliable and does it influence orthodontic treatment decisions?

M. Al-Abdallah, J. Sandler and K. O'Brien

School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, UK

Address for correspondence M. Al-Abdallah, Orthodontic Department, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester M15 6FH, UK, E-mail:mariam.al-abdallah{at}postgrad.manchester.ac.uk


   Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability of the Royal London Space Analysis (RLSA) and to evaluate its influence on orthodontic treatment decisions. Thirty-one case records were collected to represent various levels of crowding and different types of malocclusions. Seventeen examiners assessed these records and completed a data sheet that recorded information on their treatment decision. One month later, the examiners attended a course on the RLSA and then used the analysis to rescore the 31 cases. The models were also scored by the expert who led the course and these were then considered the ‘gold standard’ scores. After a further month, the examiners reapplied the RLSA and formulated a treatment plan for each set of patient records. A paired Student’s t-test and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to assess the agreement in scoring RLSA, a paired sample t-test was used to compare the scores with the gold standard, and finally the reliability in treatment planning was determined using kappa ({kappa}) statistics.

The scores for lower arch crowding showed the highest inter-examiner agreement with an ICC of 0.93 whereas the lowest level of agreement was for upper arch space requirement with an ICC of 0.77. Intra-examiner agreement was generally high, particularly for the assessment of lower arch crowding (ICC = 0.93) and lower arch space requirement (ICC = 0.88). There was excellent validity for all the examiners against the gold standard scores with a paired samples correlation ranging between 0.96 for lower arch crowding and 0.79 for upper arch space requirement. The intra-examiner reliability in treatment decision was only moderate, with an average {kappa} value of 0.52 (maximum 0.82, minimum 0.24). Intra- and inter-examiner agreement for scoring the RLSA was acceptable. Nevertheless, the additional information obtained from the application of the RLSA did not have a substantial impact on the treatment decisions.


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




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.