|
KMID : 1023820220140040203
|
|
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
2022 Volume.14 No. 4 p.203 ~ p.211
|
|
|
Rating criteria to evaluate student performance in digital wax-up training using multi-purpose software
|
|
Mino Takuya
Kurosaki Yoko
Tokumoto Kana
Higuchi Takaharu
Nakanoda Shinichi
Numoto Ken
Tosa Ikue
Kimura-Ono Aya
Maekawa Kenji
Kim Tae-Hyung
Kuboki Takuo
|
|
|
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 wax-up 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.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Educational measurement, Training program, Prosthodontics, Rating criteria, Computer-aided design
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
 
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
  
|