The decision to extract: Part 1—Interclinician agreement

• Published in: American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics Vol. 109; no. 3; pp. 297 - 309
• Main Authors: Baumrind, Sheldon, Korn, Edward L., Boyd, Robert L., Maxwell, Raymond
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Mosby, Inc 01.03.1996
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Age Factors; Bicuspid - surgery; Child; Cohort Studies; Decision Making; Dentistry; Female; Humans; Male; Malocclusion - diagnosis; Malocclusion - surgery; Malocclusion - therapy; Observer Variation; Orthodontics, Corrective - methods; Orthodontics, Corrective - statistics & numerical data; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data; Prospective Studies; Tooth Extraction - psychology; Tooth Extraction - statistics & numerical data
• ISSN: 0889-5406; 1097-6752
• DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70153-1

As part of an ongoing prospective clinical trial of conventional orthodontic treatment, the decision making patterns of a representative group of orthodontic clinicians were examined. Data were available for 148 subjects (100 adolescents and 48 adults) who had presented at the University of California San Francisco Graduate Orthodontic Clinic requesting treatment for correction of a Class I or Class II malocclusion. The records for each subject were evaluated independently by each of five members of the clinical faculty, making available a total of 740 independent patient evaluations. With regard to the primary decision as to whether extraction or nonextraction treatment was to be preferred, agreement among clinicians was higher than had been anticipated. In almost two thirds of the cases, the decisions of all five clinicians were in agreement as to whether extraction or nonextraction was the preferred treatment modality. (This figure included 59 cases of complete agreement for extraction therapy (40%) and 38 cases of complete agreement for nonextraction therapy (26%)). In only 51 cases (34%), did the reviewing clinicians disagree as to whether extraction or nonextraction was the preferred modality of treatment. The clinicians were also asked to indicate their opinions as to whether orthognatic surgery was likely to be a part of the ultimate treatment course for each individual subject. Nine percent of the 740 patient evaluations contained a clinician judgement that surgery would be a probable or definite component of the orthodontic treatment plan. For 29% of the adult subjects (14 cases) and 23% of the adolescent subjects (23 cases), one or more of the five examining clinicians believed that adjunctive surgical intervention would probably or definitely be appropriate. These high values were unexpected, particularly because the sample had been prescreened by a single clinician to exclude subjects who might require orthognathic surgery. Clinician agreement of Angle classification was also evaluated. Disagreements were observed in 14 adult subjects (29%) and 27 adolescent subjects (27%). Little association was observed between clinician agreement on Angle classification and clinician agreement on whether or not to extract. (A M J O RTHOD D ENTOFAC O RTHOP 1996;109:297-309.)