J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci.  2019 Dec;35(4):220-227. 10.14368/jdras.2019.35.4.220.

A comparative study of the improvement after different self-assessment methods of tooth preparation

• Kim J
• Son K
• Lee KB

• KMID: 2470627
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2019.35.4.220

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to compare the degree of tooth preparation abilities of students according to three self-assessment methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
forty-eight sophomores in Kyungpook National University College of Dentistry were divided into three experimental groups. Students performed tooth preparation of the left mandibular first molar for full gold crown. They performed self-assessment using the three methods (visual, digital, and putty index self-assessment group), and reperformed tooth preparation. An intraoral scanner was used to scan each tooth model (prepared tooth and unprepared tooth), and data were acquired in standard tessellation language (STL) file format. The STL files of prepared tooth and unprepared tooth were superimposed using the 3-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic control X). And the reduction amount was measured. In the statistical analysis, all values of reduction amount were analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test and Kruskal-Wallis test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS
The three self-assessment methods showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.001). The putty index self-assessment group showed the highest reduction in error than the digital self-assessment method.
CONCLUSION
Within limitations of this study, students showed significant differences in improvement of tooth preparation ability according to the three self-evaluation methods.

Keyword

dental education; self-assessment; crown preparation; CAD/CAM; three-dimensional analysis

MeSH Terms

Crowns
Dentistry
Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Education, Dental
Gyeongsangbuk-do
Humans
Methods*
Molar
Self-Assessment*
Tooth Preparation*
Tooth*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Three different self-assessment methods. (A) Dental typodont for visual self-assessment, (B) Color difference map for digital self-assessment, (C) Dental typodont with putty index for putty index self-assessment.

• 

  Fig. 2 Digital evaluation process by superimposition of STL files. (A) STL file of unprepared tooth, (B) STL file of prepared tooth, (C) Superimposition of STL files, (D) Reduction measurement points (functional cusp: red, non-functional cusp: purple, axis wall: green).

Reference

References

1. Furness AR, Callan RS, Mackert JR Jr, Mollica AG. 2018; Limitations of surface mapping technology in accurately identifying critical errors in dental students' crown preparations. J Dent Educ. 82:69–75. DOI: 10.21815/JDE.018.010. PMID: 29292328.

2. Renne WG, McGill ST, Mennito AS, Wolf BJ, Marlow NM, Shaftman S, Holmes JR. 2013; E4D Compare software: an alternative to faculty grading in dental education. J Dent Educ. 77:168–75. PMID: 23382526. PMCID: PMC4201233.

3. Mays KA, Crisp HA, Vos P. 2016; Utilizing CAD/CAM to measure total occlusal convergence of preclinical dental students' crown preparations. J Dent Educ. 80:100–7. PMID: 26729690.

4. Callan RS, Cooper JR, Young NB, Mollica AG, Furness AR, Looney SW. 2015; Inter- and intrarater reliability using two different software versions of E4D Compare. J Dent Educ. 79:711–8. PMID: 26034037.

5. Callan RS, Blalock JS, Cooper , JR , Coleman JF, Looney SW. 2014; Reliability of CAD CAM technology in assessing crown preparations in a preclinical dental school environment. J Dent Educ. 78:40–50. PMID: 24385523.

6. Callan RS, Haywood VB, Cooper JR, Furness AR, Looney SW. 2015; The validity of using E4D Compare's "% comparison" to assess crown preparations in preclinical dental education. J Dent Educ. 79:1445–51. PMID: 26632299.

7. Tiu J, Cheng E, Hung TC, Yu CC, Lin T, Schwass D, Al-Amleh B. 2016; Effectiveness of crown preparation assessment software as an educational tool in simulation clinic: A pilot study. J Dent Educ. 80:1004–11. PMID: 27480712.

8. Callan RS, Cooper JR, Young NB, Mollica AG, Furness AR, Looney SW. 2015; Effect of employing different typodonts when using E4D compare for dental student assessment. J Dent Educ. 79:705–10. PMID: 26034036.

9. Kateeb ET, Kamal MS, Kadamani AM, Abu Hantash RO, Abu Arqoub MM. 2017; Utilising an innovative digital software to grade pre-clinical crown preparation exercise. Eur J Dent Educ. 21:220–27. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12204. PMID: 27146473.

10. Liu L, Li J, Yuan S, Wang T, Chu F, Lu X, Hu J, Wang C, Yan B, Wang L. 2018; Evaluating the effectiveness of a preclinical practice of tooth preparation using digital training system: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Dent Educ. 22:e679–86. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12378. PMID: 29952122.

11. Kozarovska A, Larsson C. 2018; Implementation of a digital preparation validation tool in dental skills laboratory training. Eur J Dent Educ. 22:115–21. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12272. PMID: 28504847.

12. Mays KA, Levine E. 2014; Dental students' self-assessment of operative preparations using CAD/CAM: a preliminary analysis. J Dent Educ. 78:1673–80. PMID: 25480283.

13. Park CF, Sheinbaum JM, Tamada Y, Chandiramani R, Lian L, Lee C, Da Silva J, Ishikawa-Nagai S. 2017; Dental students' perceptions of digital assessment software for preclinical tooth preparation exercises. J Dent Educ. 81:597–603. DOI: 10.21815/JDE.016.015. PMID: 28461637.

14. Zitzmann NU, Kovaltschuk I, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Joda T. 2017; Dental students' perceptions of digital and conventional impression techniques: A randomized controlled trial. J Dent Educ. 81:1227–32. DOI: 10.21815/JDE.017.081. PMID: 28966188.