Intra and inter-individual differences in the visual evaluation of crown preparations in the phantom head
Copyright (c) 2024 Maximilian Nothaft, Laurenz Kotthaus, Eva Groth, Mihai Rominu, Rüdiger Junker

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
[1]Alammari, M.R., Y.M. Alkhiary, and A.A. Nawar, Intra-and inter-examiner variability in evaluating impression procedures at the undergraduate level. Journal of Life Sciences, 2013. 5(1): p. 5-10.
[2]Sharaf, A.A., A.M. AbdelAziz, and O.A. El Meligy, Intra- and inter-examiner variability in evaluating preclinical pediatric dentistry operative procedures. J Dent Educ, 2007. 71(4): p. 540-4.
[3]Haynes, B.I., S. Bauermeister, and D. Bunce, Age and Intraindividual Variability, in Encyclopedia of Geropsychology, N.A. Pachana, Editor. 2015, Springer Singapore: Singapore. p. 1-9.
[4]Faure, P., et al., Social Determinants of Inter-Individual Variability and Vulnerability: The Role of Dopamine. Front Behav Neurosci, 2022. 16: p. 836343.
[5]Miyazono, S., et al., Use of Digital Technology to Improve Objective and Reliable Assessment in Dental Student Simulation Laboratories. J Dent Educ, 2019. 83(10): p. 1224-1232.
[6]Jenkins, S.M., et al., Evaluating undergraduate preclinical operative skill; use of a glance and grade marking system. J Dent, 1998. 26(8): p. 679-84.
[7]Kahneman, D., O. Sibony, and C.R. Sunstein, Noise : a flaw in human judgment. First edition. ed. 2021, New York: Little, Brown Spark. ix, 454 pages.
[8]Kwon, S.R., et al., Dental anatomy grading: comparison between conventional visual and a novel digital assessment technique. J Dent Educ, 2014. 78(12): p. 1655-62.
[9]Kateeb, E.T., et al., Utilising an innovative digital software to grade pre-clinical crown preparation exercise. Eur J Dent Educ, 2017. 21(4): p. 220-227.
[10]Baumann, M., Evaluation von Bewertungskriterien für praktische Studentenarbeiten im Vergleich zur Bewertung per Augenschein. 2015, LMU München.
[11]Schiefelbein, R., Untersuchung zur Umsetzung von Richtlinien zur Präparation CAD/CAM-generierter vollkeramischer Frontzahnkronen. 2015, LMU München.
[12]Nothaft, M., et al., The preclinical teaching of the “Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramic” workflow: A questionnaire-based evaluation. Saudi Journal of Oral Sciences, 2023. 10(2): p. 72-77.
[13]Landis, J.R. and G.G. Koch, The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 1977. 33(1): p. 159-74.
[14]Welk, A., et al., Computer-assisted learning and simulation systems in dentistry--a challenge to society. Int J Comput Dent 2006. 9: p. 253-265.
[15]Salvendy, G., et al., Pilot study on criteria in cavity preparation--facts or artifacts? J Dent Educ, 1973. 37(11): p. 27-31.
[16]Mino, T., et al., Rating criteria to evaluate student performance in digital wax-up training using multi-purpose software. J Adv Prosthodont, 2022. 14(4): p. 203-211.
[17]Strub, J.R., et al., Curriculum Prothetik: Band 1. 2019: Quintessenz Verlag.
[18]Brosch, T., et al., The impact of emotion on perception, attention, memory, and decision-making. Swiss Med Wkly, 2013. 143: p. w13786.
[19]Al Amri, M.D., H.R. Sherfudhin, and S.R. Habib, Effects of Evaluator’s Fatigue and Level of Expertise on the Global and Analytical Evaluation of Preclinical Tooth Preparation. J Prosthodont, 2018. 27(7): p. 636-643.
[20]Fuller, J.L., The effects of training and criterion models on interjudge reliability. J Dent Educ, 1972. 36(4): p. 19-22.
[21]Lilley, J.D., et al., Reliability of practical tests in operative dentistry. Br Dent J, 1968. 125(5): p. 194-7.
[22]Goepferd, S.J. and P.E. Kerber, A comparison of two methods for evaluating primary class II cavity preparations. J Dent Educ, 1980. 44(9): p. 537-42.
[23]Schmitt, L., et al., Study on the Interrater Reliability of an OSPE (Objective Structured Practical Examination) - Subject to the Evaluation Mode in the Phantom Course of Operative Dentistry. GMS J Med Educ, 2016. 33(4): p. Doc61.
[24]Habib, S.R. and H. Sherfudhin, Students’ self-assessment: a learning tool and its comparison with the faculty assessments. J Contemp Dent Pract, 2015. 16(1): p. 48-53.
[25]Schepke, U., et al., Digital assessment of a retentive full crown preparation-An evaluation of prepCheck in an undergraduate pre-clinical teaching environment. Eur J Dent Educ, 2020. 24(3): p. 407-424.
[26]Wolgin, M., et al., Comparison of a prepCheck-supported self-assessment concept with conventional faculty supervision in a pre-clinical simulation environment. Eur J Dent Educ, 2018. 22(3): p. e522-e529.
[27]Stoilov, M., et al., Comparison of Digital Self-Assessment Systems and Faculty Feedback for Tooth Preparation in a Preclinical Simulation. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021. 18(24).
[28]Nagy, Z.A., et al., Evaluating the efficiency of the Dental Teacher system as a digital preclinical teaching tool. Eur J Dent Educ, 2018. 22(3): p. e619-e623.
[29]Nothaft, M., et al., Self-Assessment-Of-Dental-Preparations-In-The-Phantom-Head-With-Prepcheck-A-Questionnaire-Based-Evaluation. Romanian Journal of Oral Rehabiltation, 2023.
[30]Schlenz, M.A., et al., Undergraduate dental students’ perspective on the implementation of digital dentistry in the preclinical curriculum: a questionnaire survey. BMC Oral Health, 2020. 20(1): p. 78.


