比较使用数字扫描与传统目测法评估临床前 II 类复合材料制备时等级间和等级内的可靠性

IF 1.7 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Saudi Dental Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.07.005
{"title":"比较使用数字扫描与传统目测法评估临床前 II 类复合材料制备时等级间和等级内的可靠性","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.07.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to evaluate the intra- and inter-grader reliability of four evaluators using three different digital intraoral scanners and visual methods for typodontic Class II composite preparations.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Ninety-five typodont teeth of Class II composite preparations were evaluated using traditional visual grading methods (VGM) and digital grading methods (DGM) using the same rubric. Three intraoral scanners were used to scan the Class II cavity preparation for the composite: i700 (Medit, Korea), Trios 4 (3Shape, Denmark), and Shinning 3D (Shinning 3D, China). The same rubric was used to score the visual and digital evaluations by calibrated examiners. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare method- and evaluator-based scores, accounting for the scanner type used.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The scores of the prepped typodont teeth were subjected to an interaction between the examiner and the evaluation technique. In addition, the mean total prepped teeth scores differed between examiners using VGM. A statistically significant interaction emerged between examiners and the evaluation technique employed to assess the total score of the prepped teeth:<!--> <em>F</em>(9, 1504) = 3.893,<!--> <em>P</em> = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.023. The total prepped tooth score differed between the VGM and DGM groups. Lower (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05) intra-grader consistency was observed for the final scores when Class II preparations were evaluated using the VGM; however, this consistency improved when using the DGM.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Examiners and evaluation methods affect student performance in Class II cavity preparations. The DGM may be more reliable and consistent within and between evaluators than the VGM is.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47246,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Dental Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013905224002025/pdfft?md5=18a479bf6c4e848d171e6759642f8976&pid=1-s2.0-S1013905224002025-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the reliability of inter- and intra-grader using digital scanning vs. traditional visual method for evaluating preclinical class II composite preparation\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.07.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to evaluate the intra- and inter-grader reliability of four evaluators using three different digital intraoral scanners and visual methods for typodontic Class II composite preparations.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Ninety-five typodont teeth of Class II composite preparations were evaluated using traditional visual grading methods (VGM) and digital grading methods (DGM) using the same rubric. Three intraoral scanners were used to scan the Class II cavity preparation for the composite: i700 (Medit, Korea), Trios 4 (3Shape, Denmark), and Shinning 3D (Shinning 3D, China). The same rubric was used to score the visual and digital evaluations by calibrated examiners. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare method- and evaluator-based scores, accounting for the scanner type used.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The scores of the prepped typodont teeth were subjected to an interaction between the examiner and the evaluation technique. In addition, the mean total prepped teeth scores differed between examiners using VGM. A statistically significant interaction emerged between examiners and the evaluation technique employed to assess the total score of the prepped teeth:<!--> <em>F</em>(9, 1504) = 3.893,<!--> <em>P</em> = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.023. The total prepped tooth score differed between the VGM and DGM groups. Lower (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05) intra-grader consistency was observed for the final scores when Class II preparations were evaluated using the VGM; however, this consistency improved when using the DGM.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Examiners and evaluation methods affect student performance in Class II cavity preparations. The DGM may be more reliable and consistent within and between evaluators than the VGM is.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Saudi Dental Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013905224002025/pdfft?md5=18a479bf6c4e848d171e6759642f8976&pid=1-s2.0-S1013905224002025-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Saudi Dental Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013905224002025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013905224002025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在评价四位评价者使用三种不同的数字化口内扫描仪和视觉方法对正畸II类复合牙预备进行评价时,评价者内部和评价者之间的可靠性。材料和方法使用传统的视觉分级方法(VGM)和数字化分级方法(DGM)对95颗正畸II类复合牙预备进行评价,并使用相同的评分标准。使用三台口内扫描仪扫描 II 类复合树脂牙洞预备:i700(Medit,韩国)、Trios 4(3Shape,丹麦)和Shinning 3D(Shinning 3D,中国)。经校准的检查员使用相同的评分标准对视觉和数字评估进行评分。使用双向方差分析比较了基于方法和评估者的得分,并考虑了所使用的扫描仪类型。结果预处理的正畸牙齿的得分受检查者和评估技术之间交互作用的影响。此外,使用 VGM 的检查员的预处理牙齿平均总分也有所不同。检查者与评估技术之间存在统计学意义上的交互作用:F(9, 1504) = 3.893, P = 0.001, 局部 η2 = 0.023。VGM 组和 DGM 组的预处理牙齿总分不同。在使用 VGM 评价 II 类牙体预备时,观察到最终得分的级内一致性较低(P < 0.05);但在使用 DGM 时,一致性有所提高。与 VGM 相比,DGM 在评价者内部和评价者之间可能更加可靠和一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing the reliability of inter- and intra-grader using digital scanning vs. traditional visual method for evaluating preclinical class II composite preparation

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the intra- and inter-grader reliability of four evaluators using three different digital intraoral scanners and visual methods for typodontic Class II composite preparations.

Materials and methods

Ninety-five typodont teeth of Class II composite preparations were evaluated using traditional visual grading methods (VGM) and digital grading methods (DGM) using the same rubric. Three intraoral scanners were used to scan the Class II cavity preparation for the composite: i700 (Medit, Korea), Trios 4 (3Shape, Denmark), and Shinning 3D (Shinning 3D, China). The same rubric was used to score the visual and digital evaluations by calibrated examiners. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare method- and evaluator-based scores, accounting for the scanner type used.

Results

The scores of the prepped typodont teeth were subjected to an interaction between the examiner and the evaluation technique. In addition, the mean total prepped teeth scores differed between examiners using VGM. A statistically significant interaction emerged between examiners and the evaluation technique employed to assess the total score of the prepped teeth: F(9, 1504) = 3.893, P = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.023. The total prepped tooth score differed between the VGM and DGM groups. Lower (P < 0.05) intra-grader consistency was observed for the final scores when Class II preparations were evaluated using the VGM; however, this consistency improved when using the DGM.

Conclusion

Examiners and evaluation methods affect student performance in Class II cavity preparations. The DGM may be more reliable and consistent within and between evaluators than the VGM is.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Saudi Dental Journal
Saudi Dental Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: Saudi Dental Journal is an English language, peer-reviewed scholarly publication in the area of dentistry. Saudi Dental Journal publishes original research and reviews on, but not limited to: • dental disease • clinical trials • dental equipment • new and experimental techniques • epidemiology and oral health • restorative dentistry • periodontology • endodontology • prosthodontics • paediatric dentistry • orthodontics and dental education Saudi Dental Journal is the official publication of the Saudi Dental Society and is published by King Saud University in collaboration with Elsevier and is edited by an international group of eminent researchers.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board What is the impact of patient attributes, implant characteristics, surgical techniques, and placement location on the success of orthodontic mini-implants in young adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis The effect of derum (bark of Juglans regia tree) extract on oral mucosa: An in vivo study based on epithelial atypia in rabbit model Impact of proton pump inhibitors on periodontal health – A systematic review Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1