IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i24p13218-d703105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Digital Self-Assessment Systems and Faculty Feedback for Tooth Preparation in a Preclinical Simulation

Author

Listed:
  • Milan Stoilov

    (Department of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany)

  • Lea Trebess

    (Department of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany)

  • Markus Klemmer

    (Department of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany)

  • Helmut Stark

    (Department of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany)

  • Norbert Enkling

    (Department of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany)

  • Dominik Kraus

    (Department of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education and Dental Materials Science, University Hospital Bonn, 53111 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

Background: Regarding the new dental licensing regulations in Germany (AOZ), this study evaluated the effectiveness of two different digital tooth preparation validation systems in comparison to traditional faculty feedback. Methods: Participants were randomly divided into groups: Faculty Feedback (FF: n = 33), PrepCheck ® (PC: n = 32) and Dental Teacher™ (n = 32). Students had the task to prepare tooth 16 for a retentive full-cast crown. Preparations could be repeated as often as desired. Feedback was provided either by faculty staff or by digital validation systems only. Exams were conducted and graded by two independent and experienced examiners. A survey was performed to evaluate the assessment concepts. Results: No statistical difference in examination performance between groups could be observed. Nevertheless, the survey showed participants preferred consulting the faculty staff rather than the digital validation systems. Students preferred practising with DT rather than with PC. Conclusions: Although both classical and digital methods showed comparable results regarding the preparation examination performance, direct feedback by the faculty staff is still appreciated by the students. A combination of both methods is mandatory since demonstration and advice by the teacher is needed. However, digital tooth preparation validation systems are predestined for free practice sessions, providing self-assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Milan Stoilov & Lea Trebess & Markus Klemmer & Helmut Stark & Norbert Enkling & Dominik Kraus, 2021. "Comparison of Digital Self-Assessment Systems and Faculty Feedback for Tooth Preparation in a Preclinical Simulation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-16, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13218-:d:703105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13218/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13218/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13218-:d:703105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.