Considerable disagreements and variations exist in diagnosis and treatment planning of periodontal disease. Achieving high interrater periodontal diagnosis can prove challenging. The objectives of this study were to measure variations in periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning among predoctoral periodontics faculty members after consensus training and to compare such variation with those identified in third- and fourth-year dental students. Nine electronically stored case vignettes and survey instruments were made available to eighteen faculty members and twenty dental students under standardized conditions. A chi-square test was used to compare responses between groups, and multirater kappa tests were used to evaluate interrater agreement/reliability. Of the nine cases, only one differed between groups significantly in terms of treatment. Also, third-year students differed from fourth-year students on the diagnosis of aggressive periodontitis versus chronic periodontitis. Most respondents were able to distinguish clearly among diagnoses of chronic periodontitis, aggressive periodontitis, and gingivitis. This study established a baseline assessment of the current status of consensus after training. We will reassess variations after addressing the specific challenges identified. Programs designed and implemented to help decrease the variation in periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning among faculty members may ultimately translate into better agreement and better standardization of dental instruction.
Keywords: calibration; clinical education; clinical evaluation; consensus training; dental education; diagnosis; educational methodology; interrater reliability; periodontal disease; periodontics.