A Comparative Pilot Study of Computer-Based Evaluation Software Versus Traditional Evaluation in Preclinical Operative Procedures

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the paper is to assess the effectiveness of a computer-based evaluation software for preclinical preparations and restorations when compared to traditional faculty grading/evaluation.

Methods

Forty-four Class I (#30-O) and Class II (#30-MO) preparations and Class II amalgam restorations (#31-MO) were generated in preclinical setting by first-year dental students. Calibrated faculty evaluated the preparations and restorations using a validated rubric from preclinical operative class. The preparations and restorations were scanned using Planmeca PlanScan intraoral scanner and graded using the Romexis E4D Compare Software. Each was compared against a corresponding gold standard tooth with tolerance intervals ranging from 100 to 500 µm. 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 for Class I preparation at 300 µm tolerance had the smallest mean difference of 1.64 points on a 100-point scale, compared to the average faculty grade. Class II preparation at 400 µm tolerance had the smallest mean difference of 0.41 points. Finally, Class II restoration at 300 µm 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 valuable adjunct method for grading of student preparations and restorations. It also provides a practical tool for students to self-evaluate their preclinical operative procedures.