The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index is a valid and reliable measure of orthodontic treatment outcome and is the most widely accepted such index.
Assessing outcomes with the PAR index requires the examination of pre-treatment and post-treatment orthodontic study models. Beginning with the pre-treatment models, a score is given to each feature that deviates from an ideal occlusion (all anatomical contact points adjacent, good interdigitation between posterior teeth and non-excessive overjet/overbite), the scores are then added together to give a total that represents the severity of the malocclusion. The process is then repeated with the post-treatment models. The difference between the pre-treatment and the post-treatment scores reflects the improvement that has taken place during treatment. A score of zero represents an ideal occlusion and in general the higher the score, the more extensive the malocclusion.
It is currently a condition of the NHS orthodontic contract for providers to monitor a proportion of their cases using the PAR index. This paper aims to provide primary dental care practitioners with an overview of the PAR index and should provide a useful guide for those wishing to seek calibration in the use of the index.
ArrudaAO.Occlusal indexes as judged by subjective opinions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2008;134(5):671–675.
2.
SummersCJ.The occlusal index: a system for identifying and scoring occlusal disorders. Am J Orthod1971;59(6):552–566.
3.
PickeringEA, VigP.The occlusal index used to assess orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod1975;2(1):47–51.
4.
EldertonRJ, ClarkJD.Orthodontic treatment in the General Dental Service assessed by the Occlusal Index. Br J Orthod1983;10(4):178–186.
5.
EldertonRJ, ClarkJD.An investigation of treatment provided in the General Dental Service for patients with Class II division 1 malocclusions. Br J Orthod1984;11(1):2–8.
6.
MyrbergN, ThilanderB.An evaluation of the duration and the results of orthodontic treatment. Scand J Dent Res1973;81(2):85–91.
7.
EismannD.A method of evaluating efficiency of orthodontic treatment. Trans Eur Orthod Soc1974; 223–232.
8.
GottliebEL.Grading your orthodontic treatment results. J Clin Orthod1975;9(3):143–154.
9.
BergR.Post-retention analysis of treatment problems and failures in 264 consecutively treated cases. Eur J Orthod1979;1(1): 55–68.
10.
EismannD.Reliable assessment of morphological changes results from orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod1980;2(1):19–25.
11.
BergR, FredlundA.Evaluation of orthodontic treatment results. Eur J Orthod1981;3(3):181–185.
12.
World Health Organization.An international methodology for epidemiological studies of oral disease. Manual No. 5: Epidemiological studies of periodontal disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1966.
13.
SummersCJ.Tests of validity of indices of occlusion. Am J Orthod1972;62:(4):428–429.
14.
TangEL, WeiSH.Recording and measuring malocclusion: A review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1993;103:(4):344–351.
15.
RichmondS, ShawWC, O'BrienKD, BuchananIB, JonesR, StephensCD, RobertsCT, AndrewsM.The development of the PAR index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod1992;14(2):125–139.
16.
British Orthodontic Standards Working Party.Second report. Br J Orthod1986;13:165–173.
17.
CarlosJP.Evaluation of indices of malocclusion. Int Dent J1970;20(4):606–617.
18.
ShawWC, RichmondS, O'BrienKD.The use of occlusal indices: a European perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1995;107(1):1–10.
19.
GraingerRM.Orthodontic treatment priority index. Vital Health Stat1967;2(25):1–49.
20.
SalzmannJA.Handicapping malocclusion assessment to establish treatment priority. Am J Orthod1968;54(10):749–765.
21.
BirkelandK, BøeOE, WisthPJ.Subjective assessment of dental and psychosocial effects of orthodontic treatment. J Orofac Orthop1997;58(1):44–61.
22.
Pangrazio-KulbershV, KaczynskiR, ShunockM.Early treatment outcome assessed by the Peer Assessment Rating index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1999;115(5):544–550.
23.
BuchananIB, ShawWC, RichmondS, O'BrienKD, AndrewsM.A comparison of the reliability and validity of the PAR Index and Summers’ Occlusal Index. Eur J Orthod1993;15(1):27–31.
24.
McGorraySP, WheelerTT, KeelingSD, YurkiewiczL, TaylorMG, KingGJ.Evaluation of orthodontists’ perception of treatment need and the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. Angle Orthod1999;69(4):325–333.
25.
RichmondS, ShawWC, RobertsCT, AndrewsM.The PAR index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod1992;14(3):180–187.
26.
RichmondS.Evaluating Effective Orthodontic Care, 1st ed. Cardiff: FIRST Numerics Ltd; 2005. p38–39.
27.
RichmondS, TurbillEA, AndrewsM.Calibration of non-dental and dental personnel in the use of the PAR Index. Br J Orthod1993;20(3):231–234.
RobertsCT, RichmondS.The design and analysis of reliability studies for the use of epidemiological and audit indices in orthodontics. Br J Orthod1997;24(2):139–147.
HamdanAM, RockWP.An appraisal of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index and a suggested new weighting system. Eur J Orthod1999;21(2):181–192.
34.
DeGuzmanL, BahiraeiBS, VigKWL, VigPS, WeyantRJ, O'BrienK.The validation of the Peer Assessment Rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1995;107:172–176.
35.
KerrWJ, BuchananIB, McCollJH.Use of the PAR index in assessing the effectiveness of removable orthodontic appliances. Br J Orthod1993;20(4):351–357.
36.
HinmanC.The Dental Practice Board. Orthodontics–the current status. Br J Orthod1995; 22(3):287–290.
37.
LingeL, LingeBO.Patient characteristics and treatment variables associated with root resorption during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1991;99(1):35–43.
38.
DykenRA, SadowskyPL, HurstD.Orthodontic Outcomes Assessment Using the Peer Assessment Rating Index. Angle Orthod2001;71(3):164–169.
39.
FoxNA.The first 100 cases: a personal audit of orthodontic treatment assessed by the PAR (peer assessment rating) index. Br Dent J1993;174(8):290–297.
40.
RichmondS, AndrewsM, RobertsCT.The provision of orthodontic care in the general dental services of England and Wales: extraction patterns, treatment duration, appliance types and standards. Br J Orthod1993;20(4): 345–350.
41.
TurbillEA, RichmondS, AndrewsM.A preliminary comparison of the DPB's grading of completed orthodontic cases with the PAR Index. Br J Orthod1994;21(3):279–285.
42.
TurbillEA, RichmondS, WrightJL.Assessment of General Dental Services orthodontic standards: the Dental Practice Board's gradings compared to PAR and IOTN. Br J Orthod1996;23(3): 211–220.
43.
TurbillEA, RichmondS, WrightJL.A critical assessment of orthodontic standards in England and Wales (1990–1991) in relation to changes in prior approval. Br J Orthod1996;23(3):221–228.
44.
TurbillEA, RichmondS.WrightJL.A critical assessment of high-earning orthodontists in the General Dental Services of England and Wales (1990–1991). Br J Orthod1998; 25(1):47–54.
45.
TurbillEA, RichmondS.Wright JL. A closer look at General Dental Service orthodontics in England and Wales. II: What determines appliance selection? Br Dent J1999;187(5): 271–274.
46.
TehLH, KerrWJ, McCollJH.Orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in the General Dental Service in Scotland. J Orthod2000;27(2):175–180.
47.
O'BrienKD, ShawWC, RobertsCT.The use of occlusal indices in assessing the provision of orthodontic treatment by the hospital orthodontic service of England and Wales. Br J Orthod1993;20:(1):25–35.
48.
RichmondS, AndrewsM.Orthodontic treatment standards in Norway. Eur J Orthod1993;15(1):7–15.
49.
DeguchiT, HonjoT, FukunagaT, MiyawakiS, RobertsWE, Takano-YamamotoT.Clinical assessment of orthodontic outcomes with the peer assessment rating, discrepancy index, objective grading system, and comprehensive clinical assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2005;127(4):434–443.
50.
PeppersEC, LeggittVL, CarusoJM, NeufeldR, GreenJ.The effect of changes in primary attending doctor coverage frequency on orthodontic treatment time and results. Angle Orthod.2015;85:(6):1051–1056.
51.
TempletonKM, PowellR, MooreMB, WilliamsAC, SandyJR.Are the Peer Assessment Rating Index and the Index of Treatment Complexity, Outcome, and Need suitable measures for orthognathic outcomes? Eur J Orthod2006;28(5):462–466.
52.
O'RourkeN, GreenJ, CoxS.An audit of occlusal outcomes in orthognathic care in the Royal London Hospital over 2 years. Proceedings of the 28th British Orthodontic Conference; 2014 Sep 18–20; Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Page 58.
53.
MayersM, FirestoneA, RashidR, VigdKWL.Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2005;128(4):431–434.
54.
StevensDR, Flores-MirC, NebbeB, RaboudDW, HeoG, MajorPW.Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2006;129(6):794–803.
55.
FoxNA, DanielsC, GilgrassT.A comparison of the Index of Complexity Outcome and Need (ICON) with the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN). Br Dent J2002;193(4):225–230.
56.
BrookPH, ShawWC.The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod1989;11(3):309–320.
57.
DanielsC, RichmondS.The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON)J Orthod2000;27(2):149–162.
58.
OnyeasoCO, BegoleEA.Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2007;131(2):248–252.
59.
BergstromK, HallingA.Comparison of three indices in evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcome. Acta Odontol Scand1997;55(1):36–43.
60.
FirestoneAR, BeckFM, BeglinFM, VigKW.Evaluation of the peer assessment rating (PAR) index as an index of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2002;122(5):463–469.
