Rating criteria to evaluate student performance in digital wax-up training using multi-purpose software
10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.203
- Author:
Takuya MINO
1
;
Yoko KUROSAKI
;
Kana TOKUMOTO
;
Takaharu HIGUCHI
;
Shinichi NAKANODA
;
Ken NUMOTO
;
Ikue TOSA
;
Aya KIMURA-ONO
;
Kenji MAEKAWA
;
Tae Hyung KIM
;
Takuo KUBOKI
Author Information
1. Department of Oral Rehabilitation and Regenerative Medicine, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
2022;14(4):203-211
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE:. The aim of this study was to introduce rating criteria to evaluate student performance in a newly developed, digital wax-up preclinical program for computer-aided design (CAD) of full-coverage crowns and preliminarily investigate the reliability and internal consistency of the rating system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:. This study, conducted in 2017, enrolled 47 fifth-year dental students of Okayama University Dental School. Digital wax-up training included a fundamental practice using computer graphics (CG), multipurpose CAD software programs, and an advanced practice to execute a digital waxup of the right mandibular second molar (#47). Each student’s digital wax-up work (stereolithography data) was evaluated by two instructors using seven qualitative criteria. The total qualitative score (0-90) of the criteria was calculated.The total volumetric discrepancy between each student’s digital wax-up work and a reference prepared by an instructor was automatically measured by the CAD software. The inter-rater reliability of each criterion was analyzed using a weighted kappa index. The relationship between the total volume discrepancy and the total qualitative score was analyzed using Spearman’s correlation.
RESULTS:. The weighted kappa values for the seven qualitative criteria ranged from 0.62 - 0.93. The total qualitative score and the total volumetric discrepancy were negatively correlated (ρ = -0.27, P = .09, respectively); however, this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION:. The established qualitative criteria to evaluate students’ work showed sufficiently high inter-rater reliability; however, the digitally measured volumetric discrepancy could not sufficiently predict the total qualitative score.
