A validated screening tool for patient triage based on the pain symptoms, could potentially optimize the resources and expertise available in dental pain management. The aim of this study was to translate and validate the Modified Dental Pain Questionnaire (M-DePaQ) for use in categorizing patients with pain into three groups of common dental conditions. Forward Malay and Chinese translation was performed, followed by backward English translation. The translation was reviewed by an expert panel and pre-tested on patients who are native speakers. Consecutive patients aged 18 years and older experiencing pain and attending the primary dental care clinic completed the questionnaires. Four calibrated dentists made clinical diagnoses independent of the questionnaire responses. For data analysis, the cases were split randomly into Random Sample 1 (RS1) and Random Sample 2 (RS2). Discriminant analysis was performed on RS1 to develop a model for classifying dental pain cases into three groups. The model was applied to cases in RS2, and a crossvalidated accuracy rate was obtained. Criterion validity was assessed using measures such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and kappa. Of the 234 questionnaires distributed, 216 (92.3%) were returned. Classification rates were recorded at 73.8% for RS1, 75.0% for RS2, and 71.1% for all cases. The sensitivity values were 0.72, 0.39, and 0.43 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The corresponding specificity values were 0.42, 0.87, and 0.94. The discriminant validity of the adapted questionnaire was satisfactory, but the criterion validity could not be established because of biases incorporated in the study.

Dental Practicality Index (DPI) and American Association of Endodontists Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment (AAECDA) form potentially can guide clinicians in making clinical decisions and triaging in large practices and academic settings. Nonetheless, the reliability and validity should be evaluated before institution-wide implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the DPI and AAECDA forms. Ten randomly selected, trained students rated 25 cases with both forms. The itemby- item inter-rater and overall reliability were estimated with Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC2) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. The association between clinical decisions and the scores was analysed with the Generalised Estimating Equation. The inter-rater reliability of DPI was generally very good (AC2 = 0.81–1.00), except context (good; AC2 = 0.718; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.575–0.861). The inter-rater reliability of AAECDA was generally very good (AC2 = 0.81–1.00) and good (AC2 = 0.61–0.80), except the radiographic appearance of the canal(s) (fair; AC2 = 0.424, 95% CI = 0.263–0.585). Moderate overall inter-rater reliability of AAECDA (ICC = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.38–0.70) and DPI (ICC = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.48–0.77) was observed. Referral to an endodontist was positively associated with AAECDA score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.323, 95% CI = 1.145–1.52, p < 0.001). The decision of tooth extraction was positively associated with the DPI score (OR = 1.983, 95% CI = 1.539–2.555; p < 0.001). In conclusion, DPI and AAECDA are methods with moderate inter-rater reliability when used among dental students.