The mechanism that underlies tooth whitening with the use of peroxide-based materials is a complex phenomenon encompassing diffusion, interaction, and surfaces changes within the tooth. Therefore, supervision by dental health professionals as recommended by the ADA Council on Scientific Affairs is imperative to achieve a successful and safe whitening outcome.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of digital tooth preparation imaging and evaluation technology on dental students' technical abilities, self-evaluation skills, and the assessment of their simulated clinical work. A total of 80 secondyear students at one U.S. dental school were assigned to one of three groups: control (n=40), E4D Compare (n=20), and Sirona prepCheck (n=20). Students in the control group were taught by traditional teaching methodologies, and the technology-assisted groups received both traditional training and supplementary feedback from the corresponding digital system. Three outcomes were measured: faculty technical score, self-evaluation score, and E4D Compare scores at 0.30 mm tolerance. Correlations were determined between the groups' scores from visual assessment and self-evaluation and between the visual assessment and digital scores. The results showed that the visual assessment and self-evaluation scores did not differ among groups (p>0.05). Overall, correlations between visual and digital assessment scores were modest though statistically signiicant (5% level of signiicance). These results suggest that the use of digital tooth preparation evaluation technology did not impact the students' prosthodontic technical and self-evaluation skills. Visual scores given by faculty and digital assessment scores correlated moderately in only two instances.

Conventional grading of dental students' projects in preclinical courses has mainly relied on visual evaluation by experienced instructors. The purpose of this study was to compare conventional visual grading in a dental anatomy course at one U.S. dental school to a novel digital assessment technique. A total of sixty samples comprised of two sets of faculty wax-ups (n=30), student wax-ups (n=15), and dentoform teeth of tooth #14 (n=15) were used for this study. Two additional faculty members visually graded the samples according to a checklist and then repeated the grading after one week. The sample wax-up with the highest score based on the visual grading was selected as the master model for the digital grading, which was also performed twice with an interim period of one week. Descriptive statistics and signed rank tests for systematic bias were used for intra-and interrater comparisons. The intraclass correlation (ICC) was used as a measure of intra-and interrater reliability. None of the faculty members achieved the minimum acceptable intrarater agreement of 0.8. Interrater agreement was substantially less than intrarater agreement for the visual grading, whereas all measures of intrarater agreement were greater than 0.9 and considered excellent for the digital assessment technique. These results suggest that visual grading is limited by modest intrarater reliability and low interrater agreement. Digital grading is a promising evaluation method showing excellent intrarater reliability and correlation. Correlation for visual and digital grading was consistently modest, partly supporting the potential use of digital technology in dental anatomy grading.

Comparison of Compare and prepCheck showed no evidence of significant difference in students' prosthodontics technical performance and perception.

Rheological properties should be considered when developing new whitening formulations.