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

Milan Stoilov, Lea Trebess, Markus Klemmer, Helmut Stark, Norbert Enkling and Dominik Kraus
Additional contact information
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

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 24, 1-16

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.

Keywords: digital assessment; self-assessment; compare software; dental education; digital dentistry (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13218/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13218/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13218-:d:703105

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().