A comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes using the Objective Grading System (OGS) and the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index


Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine


ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480





Volume / Issue / page

Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 31 , ISSUE 2 (November 2015) > List of articles

A comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes using the Objective Grading System (OGS) and the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index

Orfan Chalabi * / Charles Brian Preston / Thikriat S. Al-Jewair / Sawsan Tabbaa

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 157-164, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-150

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 15-August-2021



Introduction: The use of objective criteria is essential to uniformly quantify and measure the severity of malocclusions and the efficacy of different treatment modalities. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and, more recently, the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (OGS) were developed to fulfill this need.

Aim: The aim of this retrospective study was to assess and compare treatment outcomes using the UK and US weighted PAR and the OGS.

Materials and methods: The sample consisted of randomly selected records of 50 patients treated by residents in one postgraduate orthodontic clinic. UK and US weightings for the PAR index were applied and compared with OGS.

Results: There was no statistically significant association between the OGS and the PAR index grading systems. Neither the UK nor the US PAR weightings showed statistically significant correlation with the OGS. All cases were ‘greatly improved’ or ‘improved’ according to the PAR index, while most cases (62%) failed according to OGS. There was a statistically significant correlation between the unweighted PAR index and the OGS (r = -0.32, p = 0.024). The US and the UK weightings for the PAR were highly correlated (r = 0.90, p < 0.001). Both weighting systems were also highly correlated with the unweighted PAR (p < 0 .001). There were no gender differences found in any of the scoring systems.

Conclusions: The current PAR index cannot replace the OGS for evaluating treatment outcomes. The current OGS cannot detect the improvement achieved in a treated case.

Content not available PDF Share



1. Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Kaczynski R, Shunock M. Early treatment outcome assessed by the Peer Assessment Rating index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:544-50.

2. Summers CJ. The occlusal index: a system for identifying and scoring occlusal disorders. Am J Orthod 1971;59:552-67.

3. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:589-99.

4. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:180-7.

5. DeGuzman L, Bahiraei D, Vig KW, Vig PS, Weyant RJ, O’Brien K. The validation of the Peer Assessment Rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:172-6.

6. Hamdan AM, Rock WP. An appraisal of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index and a suggested new weighting system. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:181-92.

7. O’Brien KD, Shaw WC, Roberts CT. The use of occlusal indices in assessing the provision of orthodontic treatment by the hospital orthodontic service of England and Wales. Br J Orthod 1993;20:25-35.

8. O’Brien KD, Robbins R, Vig KW, Vig PS, Shnorhokian H, Weyant R. The effectiveness of Class II, division 1 treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:329-34.

9. Richmond S, Andrews M. Orthodontic treatment standards in Norway. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:7-15.

10. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O’Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:125-39.

11. Firestone AR, Beck FM, Beglin FM, Vig KW. Evaluation of the peer assessment rating (PAR) index as an index of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:463-9.

12. McKnight MM, Daniels CP, Johnston LE Jr. A retrospective study of two-stage treatment outcomes assessed with two modified PAR indices. Angle Orthod 1998;68:521-4; discussion 525-6.

13. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications, 1940.

14. Richmond S. Personal audit in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1993;20:135-44.

15. Dyken RA, Sadowsky PL, Hurst D. Orthodontic outcomes assessment using the peer assessment rating index. Angle Orthod 2001;71:164-9.

16. al Yami EA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van ’t Hof MA. Occlusal outcome of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1998;68:439-44.

17. Buchanan IB, Russell JI, Clark JD. Practical application of the PAR index: an illustrative comparison of the outcome of treatment using two fixed appliance techniques. Br J Orthod 1996;23:351-7.

18. Fox NA. The first 100 cases: a personal audit of orthodontic treatment assessed by the PAR (peer assessment rating) index. Br Dent J 1993;174:290-7.

19. Kerr WJ, Buchanan IB, McColl JH. Use of the PAR index in assessing the effectiveness of removable orthodontic appliances. Br J Orthod 1993;20:351-7.

20. Shaw WC, Richmond S, O’Brien KD, Brook P, Stephens CD. Quality control in orthodontics: indices of treatment need and treatment standards. Br Dent J 1991;170:107-12.

21. Yang-Powers LC, Sadowsky C, Rosenstein S, BeGole EA. Treatment outcome in a graduate orthodontic clinic using the American Board of Orthodontics grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:451-5.

22. Pickering EA, Vig P. The occlusal index used to assess orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1975;2:47-51.

23. Tahir E, Sadowsky C, Schneider BJ. An assessment of treatment outcome in American Board of Orthodontics cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:335-42.

24. Ngan P, Yiu C. Evaluation of treatment and posttreatment changes of protraction facemask treatment using the PAR index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:414-20.

25. Birkeland K, Furevik J, Bøe OE, Wisth PJ. Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR Index. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:279-88.

26. Taylor PJ, Kerr WJ, McColl JH. Factors associated with the standard and duration of orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1996;23:335-41.