Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy in the assignment of the case definitions of peri-implant health and diseases according to the 2018 Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions.
METHODS: Ten undergraduate students, 10 general dentists, and 10 experts in implant dentistry participated in this study. All examiners were provided with clinical and radiographic documentation of 25 dental implants. Eleven out the 25 cases were also accompanied by baseline readings. Examiners were asked to define all cases using the 2018 classification case definitions. Reliability among examiners was evaluated using the Fleiss kappa statistic. Accuracy was estimated using percentage of complete agreement and quadratic weighted kappa for pairwise comparisons between each rater and a gold standard diagnosis.
RESULTS: The Fleiss kappa was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.51) and the mean quadratic weighted kappa value was 0.544. Complete agreement with the gold standard diagnosis was achieved in 59.8% of the cases. Expertise in implantology affected accuracy positively (p < 0.001) while the absence of baseline readings affected it negatively (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Both reliability and accuracy in assigning case definitions to dental implants according to the 2018 classification were mostly moderate. Some difficulties arose in the presence of specific challenging scenarios.
METHODS: Ten undergraduate students, 10 general dentists, and 10 experts in implant dentistry participated in this study. All examiners were provided with clinical and radiographic documentation of 25 dental implants. Eleven out the 25 cases were also accompanied by baseline readings. Examiners were asked to define all cases using the 2018 classification case definitions. Reliability among examiners was evaluated using the Fleiss kappa statistic. Accuracy was estimated using percentage of complete agreement and quadratic weighted kappa for pairwise comparisons between each rater and a gold standard diagnosis.
RESULTS: The Fleiss kappa was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.51) and the mean quadratic weighted kappa value was 0.544. Complete agreement with the gold standard diagnosis was achieved in 59.8% of the cases. Expertise in implantology affected accuracy positively (p < 0.001) while the absence of baseline readings affected it negatively (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Both reliability and accuracy in assigning case definitions to dental implants according to the 2018 classification were mostly moderate. Some difficulties arose in the presence of specific challenging scenarios.
摘要：
背景：本研究的目的是根据2018年牙周和种植体周围疾病和状况分类，评估种植体周围健康和疾病病例定义分配的可靠性和准确性。
方法：10名本科生，10名普通牙医，10名种植牙科专家参与了这项研究。向所有检查者提供了25个牙科植入物的临床和放射学文件。25例中的11例也伴随着基线读数。要求审查员使用2018年分类案例定义定义所有案例。使用Fleisskappa统计量评估审查员的可靠性。使用完全一致的百分比和二次加权kappa进行每个评分者与金标准诊断之间的成对比较来估计准确性。
结果：Fleisskappa为0.50（95％CI：0.48至0.51），平均二次加权kappa值为0.544。59.8%的病例与金标准诊断完全一致。植入物学方面的专业知识对准确性有积极影响（p<0.001），而基线读数的缺失对准确性有负面影响（p<0.001）。
结论：根据2018年分类将病例定义分配给牙种植体的可靠性和准确性大多中等。在存在特定挑战性情景的情况下出现了一些困难。
方法：10名本科生，10名普通牙医，10名种植牙科专家参与了这项研究。向所有检查者提供了25个牙科植入物的临床和放射学文件。25例中的11例也伴随着基线读数。要求审查员使用2018年分类案例定义定义所有案例。使用Fleisskappa统计量评估审查员的可靠性。使用完全一致的百分比和二次加权kappa进行每个评分者与金标准诊断之间的成对比较来估计准确性。
结果：Fleisskappa为0.50（95％CI：0.48至0.51），平均二次加权kappa值为0.544。59.8%的病例与金标准诊断完全一致。植入物学方面的专业知识对准确性有积极影响（p<0.001），而基线读数的缺失对准确性有负面影响（p<0.001）。
结论：根据2018年分类将病例定义分配给牙种植体的可靠性和准确性大多中等。在存在特定挑战性情景的情况下出现了一些困难。
