| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3120032 | American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics | 2009 | 11 Pages |
IntroductionThis study was designed to compare the reliability of the Q-sort and visual analog scale (VAS) methods for the assessment of smile esthetics. Furthermore, agreement between orthodontists and parents of orthodontic patients, and between male and female raters, was assessed in terms of subjective evaluation of the smile.MethodsClinical photographs and digital video captures of 48 orthodontically treated patients were rated by 2 panels: 25 experienced orthodontists (15 men, 10 women) and 20 parents of the patients (8 men, 12 women). Interrater reliability of the Q-sort and VAS methods was evaluated by using single-measure and average-measure intraclass correlation (ICC). Kappa agreement and the McNemar test were used to evaluate agreement between orthodontists and parents, and between men and women, for “attractive” and “unattractive” images of smiles captured with clinical photography.ResultsThe single-measure ICC coefficients showed fair to good reliability of the Q-sort and poor reliability of the VAS for measuring esthetic preferences of an individual orthodontist or parent. Both rating groups agreed significantly (P >0.05) on the total percentage of “attractive” images of smiles captured with clinical photography. Men and women, however, significantly disagreed on the total percentages of “attractive” and “unattractive” smiles. Women rated higher percentages of both image groups as “attractive” than did their male counterparts.ConclusionsThe Q-sort was more reliable than the VAS for measuring smile esthetics. Orthodontists and parents of orthodontic patients agreed with respect to “attractive” and “unattractive” smiles. Men and women agreed poorly with respect to “attractive” and “unattractive” smiles.
