ArticlePloS one2025
Investigation of the inter-rater reliability of three different plaque indices used in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo analyze the inter-rater reliability of three different plaque indices with regard to raters' orthodontic experience. MATERIALS/
methodsThe study analyzed 50 photographs of patients with maxillary and mandibular multibracket appliances (MB), captured via Digital Plaque Imaging Analysis (DPIA) for plaque assessment. Three indices - the modified Turesky index (TQH index), Attin index, and modified bonded bracket index (mBB index) were used. Fourteen evaluators with varying orthodontic experience levels (four with limited, five with moderate, and five with extensive experience) assessed the images.
resultsThe highest agreement among the evaluators in terms of ICC was obtained using the Attin index and the mBB index. The TQH index yielded the poorest agreement among evaluators. Orthodontic experience had no significant effect on inter-rater reliability. The evaluators with little orthodontic experience scored best in agreement with the Attin index, and the evaluators with much orthodontic experience scored best with the Attin and mBB indices. No difference was observed between the three plaque indices among the evaluators with moderate orthodontic experience. LIMITATIONS: Consistent classification of subjects into the same oral hygiene category by multiple raters using a plaque index was difficult. Consequently, calibration of raters in practice may lead to a more unanimous classification of patients into the same oral hygiene category. A disadvantage of the classification of plaque values into oral hygiene categories was posed by the category boundaries. These resulted in two plaque indices being less consistent than was the case in reality. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: We recommend the use of an orthodontic plaque index (Attin index) or a combined dental and orthodontic plaque index (mBB index) in patients with an MB. The TQH index, considered the international standard plaque index, is less appropriate for application in these patients. Training and calibration of evaluators are of great importance when applying conventional plaque indices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.