Use of Virtual Comparison Software for Preparation Depth Assessment in a Dental Technique Skills Course

Abstract

The aims of this study were 1) to determine whether the Compare software Comparison% score provided appropriate feedback for preparation depth on a non-anatomical tooth and 2) to define an acceptable tolerance for use in calculating the Comparison% for virtual assessment of cavity depth on a non-anatomical mandibular first molar. Forty-six non-anatomical ivorine teeth with laser-marked outlines on their occlusal surfaces were used for this study. One tooth was prepared at a 1.5 mm depth, approved by participating faculty at a U.S. dental school, and served as the standard preparation. The remaining teeth were divided into three groups (n=15 per group) for cavity preparation depths of 1 mm, 1.5 mm, and 2 mm in the laser-engraved external outline. Teeth were prepared using an electric handpiece with a 330 bur and a hatchet. Virtual images of the standard and experimental tooth preparations were recorded using an intraoral scanner. Virtual comparison software was then used to superimpose a three-dimensional (3D) image of each experimental preparation on the 3D image of the standard preparation. The software calculated comparison surface percentage values (Comparison%) at a 100 and 200 micron tolerance for each specimen. Two-way mixed linear models (α=0.01) were adopted to compare outcomes for the two levels of tolerance for teeth with different depths of preparation. Using a tolerance level of 200 μm, Comparison% scores for the acceptable preparation depth of 1.5 mm were found to be significantly different (p<0.01) from those of the unacceptable 1 mm and 2 mm depth preparations. These findings suggest that virtual comparison software may be used to assess an acceptable depth for cavity preparation within a defined external outline.

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 ].…”

“…E4D Compare scanning software was reported as a reliable VSA tool for matching and comparing standard ideal tooth preparation with preparations produced by students [ 31 ]. Additionally, it was able to match the efficacy of clinical staff in providing instant feedback on tooth preparation [ 14 ]. However, the software was unable to consistently identify some common critical assessment criteria, such as occlusal clearance and configurations of finish lines [ 12 ].…”

Acquisition of Skills in Operative Dentistry Following a Contemporary Technique Skills Course: A Retrospective Study

“…Co. LLC, Chicago, IL, USA). The non‐anatomical ivorine teeth were developed and custom‐made following the previous study 5 . The ivorine teeth had laser‐marked outlines in the shape of a rounded rectangle or a circle (Figure 1).…”

“…Consistent feedback is crucial during this period, as inconsistency may lead to confusion and may negatively affect the development of manual dexterity 1 . Recent research has described four primary methods for teaching the early manual dexterity skills in dentistry: 1) repetitive hands‐on exercises performed on extracted teeth or ivorine blocks, followed by routine faculty evaluations; 2 2) haptic devices capable of simulating tactile and visual feedback from a virtual object, allowing the operator to repeat multiple procedures; 3 3) advanced dental simulator (ADS) that provides real‐time tactile feedback for preparation of an ivorine tooth on a mannequin; 4 and 4) virtual assessment software that delivers immediate feedback on depth of non‐anatomical ivorine teeth 5 …”

“…The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a contemporary preclinical technique skills course on early dental student performance in a preclinical operative course. The technique skills course includes the preparation of simple shapes on non‐anatomical ivorine teeth for the development of manual dexterity along with the use of virtual assessment software for immediate feedback 5 . Specifically, we compared students' performance on the first practical exam in the operative dentistry course for students in the Class of 2020 (who did not have the preclinical technique skills course) with students in the Class of 2021, who were enrolled in the recently developed course.…”