Development of an assessment strategy in preclinical fixed prosthodontics course using virtual assessment software—Part 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate interrater agreement between faculty and virtual assessments of preparations for complete coverage restorations in preclinical fixed prosthodontics. Teeth prepared during preclinical fixed prosthodontics practical exams at the University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine were used in this study. Teeth were prepared for fabrication of complete cast, metal ceramic, and all ceramic crowns. The specimens were digitized using an intraoral scanner. Then, they were virtually superimposed on the corresponding standard preparations using Compare software. The software was used to quantify comparison percentages, average finish line widths, and average axial wall heights. Two calibrated faculty members assessed preparations for occlusal/incisal reduction, finish line location, axial wall height, and finish line width using traditional assessment forms. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to measure interrater agreement between faculty and virtual assessments. Kappa interrater agreement scores ranged between 0.83 and 0.88 for virtually assessed comparison percentages and sums of faculty‐assessed occlusal/incisal reduction and finish line location. Kappa interrater agreement score ranges were 0.64–0.94 and 0.74–0.89 for comparisons of virtual and faculty assessments for axial wall height and finish line width, respectively. Virtual assessments are similar to faculty assessments for occlusal/incisal reduction, finish line location, axial wall height, and finish line width in fixed prosthodontics and can be used as equivalent evaluations of student performance for these criteria.

Comparison of Effectiveness of Two Teaching Methods on Acquisition of Skills in Preclinical Fixed Prosthodontics

“…Our study evaluated the effect of recently developed rubrics on the acquisition of psychomotor skills required for fixed prosthodontics. The method of assessment for Class B was partially objective as it used calculated data from Compare software such as %Comparison, averages of finish line width, and axial wall height 17, 18 . In our study, the use of virtual assessment software and contemporary rubrics for Class B resulted in students' ability in tooth preparation similar to that of Class A.…”

“…Students in Class B were trained using feedback from both faculty and virtual assessment software (Compare Software) according to the new rubrics developed at UB SDM 17, 18 . During the course, students used a Planmeca/E4D intraoral scanner (Planmeca Corporation; Helsinki, Finland) and Compare Software to evaluate their preparations in comparison to scans of standard preparations using the %Comparison function (Table 1).…”

“…As part of an attempt to employ virtual assessment software for student feedback, two recent studies developed rubrics based on Compare Software to evaluate student preparations by comparison to a standard preparation generated by a faculty member 17, 18 . An example of one of those rubrics is shown in Table 1.…”

Rethinking Assessment Concepts in Dental Education

“…This systematic process resulted in 24 articles being selected for inclusion in the review, seven had a low risk of bias [ 10 , 14 , 15 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 27 ], six had a high risk of bias [ 12 , 16 , 20 , 29 , 30 , 32 ], and eleven had an unclear risk of bias [ 13 , 17 – 19 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 31 , 33 , 34 ].…”

“…The use of VSA software to assess student's skills was found to provide feedback that was both reliable and repeatable [ 15 , 22 , 25 ]. E4D Compare [ 10 , 15 , 18 , 22 , 24 , 31 ], prepCheck [ 21 , 22 ], Computer Aided Design, Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD CAM) [ 27 , 29 ], Cavity Preparation Skill Evaluation System (CPSES) [ 23 ], CEREC Omnicam [ 13 ], and DentSim [ 33 ] were among the commonly reported VSA systems in the literature. Evaluations provided by these systems were significantly more consistently accurate for some aspects of the dental tasks (e.g., surface reduction, wall height, and undercuts) than conventional-grading by teaching staff [ 25 ].…”