评估根管治疗后牙齿修复难度评估系统工具的可靠性和有效性:一项初步研究。

Angad Mahajan, Ruchika Roongta Nawal, Sangeeta Talwar, Minaal Verma, Sudha Yadav
{"title":"评估根管治疗后牙齿修复难度评估系统工具的可靠性和有效性:一项初步研究。","authors":"Angad Mahajan, Ruchika Roongta Nawal, Sangeeta Talwar, Minaal Verma, Sudha Yadav","doi":"10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_598_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Restoration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is crucial for their long-term functionality, yet current practices lack structured approaches, leading to variable outcomes. The restorative difficulty evaluation system (RDES) offers a systematic method to assess restoration complexity tailored to each patient. This pilot study aims to evaluate RDES's reliability and validity in guiding clinicians' decisions on ETT restoration.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Ten participants were recruited, and two endodontists independently assessed clinical parameters using RDES. Interrater reliability was assessed to determine agreement between examiners. Test-retest reliability was evaluated over two time points (baseline and 2 weeks). Face and content validity were assessed by a panel of 10 experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intrarater reliability was robust (Evaluator 1: <i>r</i> = 0.667 and Evaluator 2: <i>r</i> = 0.655). Interrater reliability was substantial (κ =0.783). Face validity affirmed RDES parameters' relevance with scores exceeding the impact score threshold. Content validity showed high item-rated content validity index (I-CVI) scores for both relevance (I-CVI [R]) and clarity (I-CVI [C]), resulting in high scale-level CVI scores, affirming all RDES items' appropriateness. The Gunning Fog Index (14.79) suggests tool's suitability for college junior or undergraduate-level readers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study demonstrates RDES's reliability and validity in assessing restoration complexity in ETT. Its systematic approach can inform treatment decisions, potentially enhancing patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":516842,"journal":{"name":"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics","volume":"28 1","pages":"21-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835354/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The reliability and validity of the restoration difficulty evaluation system tool for assessing the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Angad Mahajan, Ruchika Roongta Nawal, Sangeeta Talwar, Minaal Verma, Sudha Yadav\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_598_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Restoration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is crucial for their long-term functionality, yet current practices lack structured approaches, leading to variable outcomes. The restorative difficulty evaluation system (RDES) offers a systematic method to assess restoration complexity tailored to each patient. This pilot study aims to evaluate RDES's reliability and validity in guiding clinicians' decisions on ETT restoration.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Ten participants were recruited, and two endodontists independently assessed clinical parameters using RDES. Interrater reliability was assessed to determine agreement between examiners. Test-retest reliability was evaluated over two time points (baseline and 2 weeks). Face and content validity were assessed by a panel of 10 experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intrarater reliability was robust (Evaluator 1: <i>r</i> = 0.667 and Evaluator 2: <i>r</i> = 0.655). Interrater reliability was substantial (κ =0.783). Face validity affirmed RDES parameters' relevance with scores exceeding the impact score threshold. Content validity showed high item-rated content validity index (I-CVI) scores for both relevance (I-CVI [R]) and clarity (I-CVI [C]), resulting in high scale-level CVI scores, affirming all RDES items' appropriateness. The Gunning Fog Index (14.79) suggests tool's suitability for college junior or undergraduate-level readers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study demonstrates RDES's reliability and validity in assessing restoration complexity in ETT. Its systematic approach can inform treatment decisions, potentially enhancing patient outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":516842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"21-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835354/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_598_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_598_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

牙髓治疗后牙齿(ETT)的修复对其长期功能至关重要,但目前的实践缺乏结构化的方法,导致结果不一。修复难度评估系统(RDES)提供了一种系统的方法来评估每个患者的修复复杂性。本初步研究旨在评估RDES在指导临床医生ETT修复决策方面的信度和效度。方法:招募10名参与者,两名牙髓医生使用RDES独立评估临床参数。评估了审查员之间的信度以确定审查员之间的一致性。在两个时间点(基线和2周)评估重测信度。面孔效度和内容效度由10名专家组成的小组评估。结果:评价者1:r = 0.667,评价者2:r = 0.655。量表间信度显著(κ =0.783)。面部效度证实了RDES参数与超过影响评分阈值的分数的相关性。内容效度在相关性(I-CVI [R])和清晰度(I-CVI [C])两方面均显示出较高的项目评定内容效度指数(I-CVI)得分,导致量表水平的CVI得分较高,肯定了所有RDES项目的适当性。射击雾指数(14.79)表明该工具适合大学初级或本科水平的读者。结论:RDES评价ETT修复复杂性的可靠性和有效性。它的系统方法可以为治疗决策提供信息,潜在地提高患者的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The reliability and validity of the restoration difficulty evaluation system tool for assessing the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A pilot study.

Introduction: Restoration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is crucial for their long-term functionality, yet current practices lack structured approaches, leading to variable outcomes. The restorative difficulty evaluation system (RDES) offers a systematic method to assess restoration complexity tailored to each patient. This pilot study aims to evaluate RDES's reliability and validity in guiding clinicians' decisions on ETT restoration.

Methodology: Ten participants were recruited, and two endodontists independently assessed clinical parameters using RDES. Interrater reliability was assessed to determine agreement between examiners. Test-retest reliability was evaluated over two time points (baseline and 2 weeks). Face and content validity were assessed by a panel of 10 experts.

Results: Intrarater reliability was robust (Evaluator 1: r = 0.667 and Evaluator 2: r = 0.655). Interrater reliability was substantial (κ =0.783). Face validity affirmed RDES parameters' relevance with scores exceeding the impact score threshold. Content validity showed high item-rated content validity index (I-CVI) scores for both relevance (I-CVI [R]) and clarity (I-CVI [C]), resulting in high scale-level CVI scores, affirming all RDES items' appropriateness. The Gunning Fog Index (14.79) suggests tool's suitability for college junior or undergraduate-level readers.

Conclusion: The study demonstrates RDES's reliability and validity in assessing restoration complexity in ETT. Its systematic approach can inform treatment decisions, potentially enhancing patient outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信