Effectiveness of Self-Assessment Software to Evaluate Preclinical Operative Procedures
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866910402727641088 |
|---|---|
| author | Dai, Qi Davis, Ryan Hong, Houlin Gu, Ying |
| author_facet | Dai, Qi Davis, Ryan Hong, Houlin Gu, Ying |
| contents | Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of digital scanning techniques for self-assessment and of preparations and restorations in preclinical dental education when compared to traditional faculty grading. Methods: Forty-four separate Class I (#30-O), Class II (#30-MO) preparations, and class II amalgam restorations (#31-MO) were generated respectively under preclinical assessment setting. Calibrated faculty evaluated the preparations and restorations using a standard rubric from preclinical operative class. The same teeth were scanned using Planmeca PlanScan intraoral scanner and graded using the Romexis E4D Compare Software. Each tooth was compared against a corresponding gold standard tooth with tolerance intervals ranging from 100μm to 500μm. These scores were compared to traditional faculty grades using a linear mixed model to estimate the mean differences at 95% confidence interval for each tolerance level. Results: The average Compare Software grade of Class I preparation at 300μm tolerance had the smallest mean difference of 1.64 points on a 100 points scale compared to the average faculty grade. Class II preparation at 400μm tolerance had the smallest mean difference of 0.41 points. Finally, Class II Restoration at 300μm tolerance had the smallest mean difference at 0.20 points. Conclusion: In this study, tolerance levels that best correlated the Compare Software grades with the faculty grades were determined for three operative procedures: class I preparation, class II preparation and class II restoration. This Compare Software can be used as a useful adjunct method for more objective grading. It also can be used by students as a great self-assessment tool. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2404_05865 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Effectiveness of Self-Assessment Software to Evaluate Preclinical Operative Procedures Dai, Qi Davis, Ryan Hong, Houlin Gu, Ying Other Quantitative Biology Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of digital scanning techniques for self-assessment and of preparations and restorations in preclinical dental education when compared to traditional faculty grading. Methods: Forty-four separate Class I (#30-O), Class II (#30-MO) preparations, and class II amalgam restorations (#31-MO) were generated respectively under preclinical assessment setting. Calibrated faculty evaluated the preparations and restorations using a standard rubric from preclinical operative class. The same teeth were scanned using Planmeca PlanScan intraoral scanner and graded using the Romexis E4D Compare Software. Each tooth was compared against a corresponding gold standard tooth with tolerance intervals ranging from 100μm to 500μm. These scores were compared to traditional faculty grades using a linear mixed model to estimate the mean differences at 95% confidence interval for each tolerance level. Results: The average Compare Software grade of Class I preparation at 300μm tolerance had the smallest mean difference of 1.64 points on a 100 points scale compared to the average faculty grade. Class II preparation at 400μm tolerance had the smallest mean difference of 0.41 points. Finally, Class II Restoration at 300μm tolerance had the smallest mean difference at 0.20 points. Conclusion: In this study, tolerance levels that best correlated the Compare Software grades with the faculty grades were determined for three operative procedures: class I preparation, class II preparation and class II restoration. This Compare Software can be used as a useful adjunct method for more objective grading. It also can be used by students as a great self-assessment tool. |
| title | Effectiveness of Self-Assessment Software to Evaluate Preclinical Operative Procedures |
| topic | Other Quantitative Biology |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05865 |