A comparison of different standard-setting methods for professional qualifying dental examination.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of assessments is determined by the standard-setting method used. Standard setting is the process of deciding what is good enough. A cutoff score of 50% was commonly used in dental schools in Malaysia. This study aims to compare the conventional, norm-referenced, and modified-Angoff standard-setting methods. METHODS: The norm-referenced method of standard setting was applied to the real scores of 40 final-year dental students on a multiple-choice question (MCQ), a short answer question (SAQ), and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). A panel of 10 judges set the standard using the modified-Angoff method for the same paper in one sitting. One judge set the passing score of 10 OSCE questions after 2 weeks. A comparison of the grades and pass/fail rates derived from the absolute standard, norm-referenced, and modified-Angoff methods was made. The intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities of the modified-Angoff method were assessed. RESULTS: The passing rate for the absolute standard was 100% (40/40), for the norm-referenced method it was 62.5% (25/40), and for the modified-Angoff method it was 80% (32/40). The modified-Angoff method had good inter-rater reliability of 0.876 and excellent test-retest reliability of 0.941. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in the outcomes of these three standard-setting methods, as shown by the difference in the proportion of candidates who passed and failed the assessment. The modified-Angoff method was found to have good reliability for use with a professional qualifying dental examination.

Ten-Year Results of a Prospective Cohort Study on Acid-Etched and Airborne Particle-Abraded Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Study.

Dental implants are intended to provide long-term reliable dental restorations. Limited data exist on the comparison between different implant surfaces. This study aims to clarify whether there is a difference between airborne particle- abraded and acid-etched (SLA implants) and only acid-etched surfaces (Osseotite) in healthy and periodontally compromised patients. After comprehensive evaluation of all 109 patients, including nonsurgical and surgical therapy for the treatment of periodontal disease, 109 implants were placed according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Each treatment site was examined radiographically 3 to 6 months after the final coronal restorations were placed. Patients were enrolled in the follow-up maintenance program, and radiologic evaluations were carried out at 5 and 10 years. Data recorded from 91 patients who completed the final 10-year follow-up were included in the analysis (SLA: n = 50; Osseotite: n = 41). At 10 years, the difference between bone-to-implant distances (DIBs) for SLA and Osseotite was significantly different (P = .001; 95% confidence interval: 0.55, 1.89 mm). Mean ± SD DIB for SLA implants was 2.1 ± 1.1 mm and 0.9 ± 2.1 mm for Osseotite implants. The overall survival rates of SLA and Osseotite implant surfaces were high during the observation period. History of previous periodontal disease plays an important role in the incidence of complications, regardless of the surface type.