Premium
Inter‐rater agreement in the diagnosis of mucositis and peri‐implantitis
Author(s) -
Merli Mauro,
Bernardelli Francesco,
Giulianelli Erica,
Toselli Ivano,
Moscatelli Marco,
Pagliaro Umberto,
Nieri Michele
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/jcpe.12291
Subject(s) - mucositis , peri implantitis , medicine , dentistry , bleeding on probing , implant , surgery , periodontitis , radiation therapy
Aim The objective was to assess the inter‐rater agreement in the diagnosis of mucositis and peri‐implantitis. Material and Methods Adult patients with ≥ 1 dental implant were eligible. Three operators examined the patients. One examiner allocated the patients to three groups of nine as follows: nine implants with peri‐implantitis, nine implants with mucositis, and 9 implants with healthy mucosa. Each examiner recorded on all 27 patients (one implant per patient) recessions, probing depth, bleeding on probing, suppuration, keratinized tissue depth and bone loss, leading to a final diagnosis of mucositis, peri‐implantitis or healthy mucosa. Examiners were independent and blinded to each other. Results Fleiss k‐statistic with quadratic weight in the diagnosis of peri‐implantitis and mucositis was 0.66 [ CI 95%: 0.45–0.87]. A complete agreement was obtained only in 14 cases (52%). Fleiss k‐statistics in bleeding on probing and bone loss were respectively 0.31 [ CI 95%: 0.20–0.41] and 0.70 [ CI 95%: 0.45–0.94]. Intra‐class correlation coefficients for recession, probing depth and keratinized tissue depth were respectively 0.69 [ CI 95%: 0.62–0.75], 0.54 [ CI 95%: 0.44–0.63] and 0.56 [ CI 95%: 0.27–0.77]. Conclusions The inter‐rater agreement in the diagnosis of peri‐implant disease was qualified as merely good. This could also be due in part to the unclear definition of peri‐implantitis and mucositis.