Content uploaded by Syed Habib
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Syed Habib on Nov 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Eur J Dent Edu c. 2018;1– 8 . wileyonlinelibr ary.com/journal/eje
|
1
© 2018 John Wi ley & Sons A /S.
Publish ed by John W iley & Sons Ltd
1 | INTRODUCTION
A successful medical/dental education system should enable the
faculty to address the students’ requirements/needs and under-
stand the various teaching methods, styles and approaches.1
Since the mid- 1990s, there is a call for change in the way dental
education is provided which is evident from a report published in
1995 by the Institute of Medicine, calling attention to the need for
change in dental education. 2,3
Unlike the medical education the assumption in dent al education
has always been that pre- clinical training is essential to the devel-
opment of students’ psychomotor skills, manual dexterity and com-
prehension of procedures required for success in the dental clinic.
The provision of best possible dental treatment to the patients can
Accepted: 6 February 2018
DOI : 10.1111 /eje .12333
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Rubric system for evaluation of crown preparation performed
by dental students
S. R. Habib
Department of Prosthetic Dental
Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud
University, Riya dh, Saudi Arabia
Correspondence
Syed Rashid Habib, Depart ment of
Prosth etic Dental Scie nces, College of
Dentis try, King Saud Universit y, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia.
Email: rashidhabib@hotmail.com
Funding information
College of Dentistry Research Center,
Grant /Award Numbe r: FR 0395; Deanship of
Scientific Rese arch at King Saud Universit y
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the use of an analytic rubric system for the
evaluation of all- ceramic crown preparation on the right maxillary central incisor per-
formed by the dental students.
Materials and Methods: Seventy- two- third- year students and 8 faculty members
from prosthodontics participated in this double- blind study. The students prepared
an ivorine tooth # 11 for all- ceramic crown. The students were given clear instruc-
tions regarding the all- ceramic crown preparation and informed about the criteria for
the assessment of the preparation. An analytic rubric based on 10- point scale for
assessment of various preparation parameters was used by the 8 examiners.
Descriptive statistics, ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests were used for statistical
analysis.
Results: One- way analysis of variance indicated significance amongst the examiners
for all the parameters except for time management. The overall mean scoring by ex-
aminers was 7.60 ± 1.18, with highest and lowest mean scores for Examiner 1
(8.02 ± 1.06) and Examiner 4 (6.82 ± 1.50), respectively. The highest number of inter-
examiner variation (difference) in scoring was found for two plane reduction, and the
least difference amongst the examiners was observed for finishing of margins and
walls of the preparation. Examiner 4 had the highest number of significant difference
with the rest of the examiners. The students scored least marks in axial reduction
(56.33%) and preservation of adjacent teeth (66.9%).
Conclusions: Criteria- based assessment using analytic rubric for crown preparations
in pre- clinical fixed prosthodontics is an effective tool for finding the errors/weak
areas of dental students.
KEY WORDS
crown preparation, dental education, dental students, pre-clinical, rubrics, student’s
assessment
2
|
HABIB
only be achieved with the commencement of preceding pre- clinical
courses and their success. The basic foundation of the dental stu-
dent’s skills is developed in these pre- clinical courses, and later, the
students continue to build on that foundation during their more ad-
vanced clinical training and later in the clinical practice.4
Pre- clinical fixed prosthodontics, which involves the teaching of di-
dactic and practical tooth preparations of teeth for crowns and fixed
parti al dentures, is a ver y important s ubject in under graduate dental c ur-
riculum. It is essential for the development of basic knowledge and hand
skills required for mastering fixed prosthodontics. However, teaching
and most importantly assessing the preparations are challenging for the
faculty as they have to start teaching the tooth preparations right from
the basics till the students are able to master the required exercises.5
Traditionally, the assessment of tooth preparations has been ac-
complished by visual method subjectively awarding a single grade or
objectively by further dividing the single grade into multiple small
grades. Researchers have named these two traditional methods as
global grading (glance and grade method) and analytic al grading
(using rubrics).6 Recently, more advanced methods such as digital
grading of tooth preparations using different types of scanners and
software programs are also introduced by various computer- assisted
design/computer- assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) companies
and are in practice in some institutes.7, 8 These systems are still
not very new and not available in majority of the dental institutes.
Majorly, the traditional methods of assessing the pre- clinical work in
dental schools are c arried out by the faculty.9
The traditional analytic assessment of pre- clinical fixed prostho-
dontics is accomplished by subjective visual assessment of the vari-
ous parameters involved, such as occlusal reduction, axial reduction,
two plane reduction, taper, margin placement, finishing, preserva-
tion of adjacent teeth and time management for optimal preparation
of the teeth. During the early pre- clinical exercises, it is challenging
for the faculty to teach the students to visualise correctly all the
parameters together during their practice sessions.10
However, the assessment of each individual parameter with the
analytic rubrics can be of definite help in finding and highlighting
to the students their strength and weaknesses. This study aimed to
investigate the use of an analytic rubric system for the evaluation of
all- ceramic crown preparation on the right maxillary central incisor
performed by the dental students. The study is potentially useful
for the development of a reliable system for the pre- clinical tooth
preparation course in dental schools.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted at Department of Prosthetic Dental
Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, and approved
by the ethical commit tee of college of dentistry research centre (FR
0395). A total number of 72 third- year dental students and 8 faculty
members with minimum qualification of masters in prosthodontics
and who had experience of teaching and assessment of tooth prepa-
rations in pre- clinical fixed prosthodontics participated in the study.
It was a double- blind study where the participating student’s iden-
tity was kept confidential from the examiners and the examiners’
identit y was not disclosed to the participating students. This was to
ensure the bias does not influence the result s of study as some of the
examiners were involved in teaching the same students.
The participating students prepared an ivorine tooth upper right cen-
tral inc isor (Tooth # 11) for all- ceram ic crown preparat ion on an upper jaw
dentoform (D85DP- CHO.1, Nissin Dental Products, Inc., Kyoto, Japan)
inside the manikin. The students were given clear instructions regarding
the all- ceramic crown preparation and informed about the criteria for the
assessment of the preparation. Possible exclusion criteria involved stu-
dents who were found cheating, an alteration of the tooth or dentoform
by the students and student s who could not finish the exercise within the
specified time. The total time allowed for the exercise was two and half
hours. After completion of the exercise, the dentoforms were collected
and numbered before commencement of the grading by the examiners.
An analy tic rubric for assessment of various tooth preparation
parameters was used for the assessment s by the 8 par ticipating ex-
aminers. The examiners who already were familiar with the criteria
were further calibrated before the commencement of the assess-
ments. The examiners independently assessed the student’s prepa-
rations in their own free time. There was no time limit specified for
the completion of the grading. However, examiners were requested
to do the assessments alone and not in groups.
The rubric used in the study was based on a 10- point scale for
assessment of 8 parameters of all- ceramic anterior crown prepa-
ration. The scoring of each major parameter such as occlusal re-
duction, axial reduction, taper and margin placement was further
subdivided into a maximum score of 1.5, 1, 0.5 and a minimum score
of 0. The rest of the 4 parameters (two plane reduction; finishing
of walls and margin; preservation of adjacent teeth and soft tissue;
time management) were supposed to get a maximum score of 1, 0.5
and a minimum score of 0. This analytic rubric used resembled a grid
in which the parameters were listed in the leftmost column and with
levels of scoring (performance) listed across the row using numbers
along with the descriptive tags. Each of the criteria (parameter)
was scored individually, and the rightmost column was filled with
the particular score against each parameter, and then, the sum of
all scores for each parameter was taken as the total score of the
individual student (Table 1). Individual printed sheet s were used for
each student’s assessment, and the hard copies were numbered ac-
cording to the blind number assigned to the dentoforms for all the
participating students.
2.1 | Statistical analysis
SPSS version 21 (SPSS, Inc., Chic ago, IL, USA) was used for the st atisti-
cal analysis of the obtained dat a with predetermined significance level
at P < .05. Descriptive st atistics for all the 8 examiners as well as the 8
parameters investigated was c arried out. On e- way analysis of variance
was used for comparison of the scoring for the 8 parameters. Post hoc
Tukey test was applied for the comparison of the individual scoring
in each parameter by all the 8 evaluators for interexaminer variation.
|
3
HABIB
TABLE1 Parameters followed in all- ceramic crown preparation
Parameter
GRADES
Score1.5 points 1 point 0.5 point No points
Occlusal Reduction Optimal reduction
Suppor ting areas or
porcelain = 1.5 - 2.0 mm
Non- supporting areas or
metal = 1.0- 1.5 mm
Moderately under- reduced
Suppor ting areas or porcelain <1.5 mm
Non- supporting areas or metal <1.0 mm
Moderately over- reduced
Suppor ting areas or porcelain >2.5 mm
Non-supportingareasormetal=≥2mm
Severely over- reduced or under- reduced
Suppor ting areas or porcelain >3.0 or <1.0 mm
Non- supporting areas or metal >2.5 mm or
<0.5 mm
Axial reduction Optimal reduction
(1.0- 1.5 mm for metal,
1.5- 2.0 mm for
porcelain) and Rounded
line and point angles
Moderately under- reduced
(<1.0 mm for metal, <1.5 mm) or Lack of
rounded line or point angles
Moderately over- reduced
(2 mm for met al, 2.5 mm for porcelain)
Severely over- reduced or under- reduced
(>2 mm for metal, >2.5 mm for porcelain)
Tap e r Optimal taper
Retentive walls have 6
degrees of taper
Under- or Over- taper
Taper present , but near parallel
orOver- tapered on mesial or distal
(>8° <16°)
Moderately Under- or Over- taper
- Undercuts visually present or
- Over- tapered on buccal or lingual
(>8° <16°)
Severe Under- or Over- taper
- Severe undercuts present or
- Severe over- tapere d on any axial surface
(>16 °)
Margin placement Optimal margin place-
ment
Margins extended to
specified target; (even
with free gingival margin
or 0.5 mm supragingival)
Over- or Under- extended
Over- extended (not more t han 0.5 mm
subgingival) or moderately under-
extended (not more than 1 mm
supragingival)
Moderately Under- or Over- extended
Significantly over- extended (not more
than 1.0 mm subgingival) pr significantly
under- extended (not more than 1.5 mm
supragingival)
Severely Under- or Over- extended
Severely over- extended (more than 1.0 mm
subgingival) or severely under- ex tended (more
than 1.5 mm supragingival)
Two plane
reduction
Proper planes
Providing adequate material bulk for
strength/aesthetics.
Moderately improper planes
over- reduced or under- reduced
Significantly improper planes
over- reduced or under- reduced
Finish, margins and
walls
Optimal finish
- Margins and walls are smooth
- Margins are continuous, well defined
Moderate roughness
- Moderate roughness of margins and
walls
- Margins are moderately non-
continuous, moderate lack of definition
Significant roughness
- Signific ant roughness of margins and walls
- Margins are non- continuous
- Lack of definition of finish line
Preser vation of
adjacent teeth
Adjacent teeth are unaffected Adjacent teeth are minimally touched. Adjacent teeth are abraded and flattened
Time management Student ends the examination on time Student ends the examination 10- 15 min
late
Student ends the examination more than 15 min
late
Total score of 10.
4
|
HABIB
3 | RESULTS
The parameters essential for the preparation of teeth for a crown
were analysed in this study. Eight examiners evaluated the param-
eters with analytic rubrics for 76 third- year dental students in a pre-
clinical fixed prosthodontic set- up. Descriptive statistics on students
score awarded by the 8 examiners are presented in Table 2. One-
way analysis of variance indicated significance amongst the examin-
ers for all the parameters except for time management, which was
awarded automatically without involving the examiners. The overall
mean scoring for all the examiners was 7.60 ± 1.18, with highest and
lowest mean scores were found for E xaminer 1 (8.02 ± 1.06) and
Examiner 4 (6.82 ± 1.50), respectively (Table 2).
Tables 3 and 4 present the results of post hoc Tukey’s test , which
was applied for the multiple comparisons of the examiners within
each parameter. The highest number of interexaminer variation
(difference) in scoring was found for two plane reduction, and the
least dif ference amongst the examiners was observed for finishing
of margins and walls of the preparation. Amongst the examiners,
Examiner 4 had the highest number of significant difference with
the rest of the examiners for all the parameters evaluated except for
the finishing of margins and walls of the preparation (Tables 3 and 4).
In line with the purpose of this study which was to determine the
parameters of tooth preparation for the crown in which the students
were having difficulties, it was obser ved that students scored least
marks in axial reduction (56.33%) and preservation of adjacent teeth
(66.9%). This is evident from the graphical presentation, comparing
the various parameters in Figures 1 and 2.
Therefore, it can be concluded that students’ needs to improve
their preparation skills within these parameters where they are scor-
ing less according to the examiners. In regard to performance in the
other parameters of preparation, the student s were above average
of 70% and found satisfactor y.
4 | DISCUSSION
In this research study, the different parameters/criteria followed
during the tooth preparation for all- ceramic anterior crowns by
third- year dental students in a pre- clinical fixed prosthodontic
set- up were evaluated with an analy tic rubric (criteria- oriented
grading) by eight instructors. In dentistry, the use of criterion-
oriented grading system is in place for more than four decades.
Dhuru et al11 in 1978 highlighted the importance and suggested
the use of criteria- oriented grading for pre- clinical dentistry
courses. The usefulness of this criteria- based evaluation has been
highlighted by many researchers in the following years.12 Due to
the limited access and resources for the more advanced digitalised
assessment tools in the majorit y of the dental schools worldwide,
the usefulness of the analytic rubric in the pre- clinical dentistry
courses cannot be overemphasised.
The advantages of using analytic rubrics in pre- clinical courses
over the subjective global (glance and grade) method are many. It
TABLE2 Mean (Standard Deviation) of parameters for crown preparation by the examiners. (N = 608)
Parameter aE 1 E 2 E 3 E 4 E 5 E 6 E 7 E 8 Overall mean
ANOVA
P value
Occlusal reduction 1.342 (.296) 1.289 (.274) 1.296 (.307) 1.033 (.4 85) 1.283 (.385) 1.178 (.254) 1.289 (.274) 1.099 (.439) 1.226 (.362) .000
Axial reduction 0.947 (.5) 0.908 (. 333) 0.895 (.442) 0.5 (.529) 0.961 (.452) 0.8 82 (.381) 0.914 (.464) 0.757 (.525) 0.845 (.477) .000
Tap e r 1.342 (.384) 1.039 (.267) 1.164 (.34) 0.987 (.418) 1.171 (.428) 1.132 (.349) 1.217 (.377) 1.0 86 (.419) 1.143 (.384) .000
Margin placement 1.204 (.441) 1.428 (.177) 1.164 (.33) 1.138 (.405) 1.125 (.455) 1.362 (.239) 1.243 (.404) 1.127 (.403) 1.224 (.382) .000
Two plane reduction 0.908 (.291) 0.737 (.44 3) 0.829 (.379) 0.934 (.249) 0 .921 (. 271) 0.664 (.485) 0.711 (.456) 0.993 (.057) 0.837 (.37 ) .000
Finish margin and
walls
0.803 (.259) 0.651 (.245) 0.737 (.276) 0.704 (.296) 0.697 (.306) 0.757 (.264) 0.829 (.265) 0.77 (.299) 0.743 (.281) .002
Preser vation of
adjacent teeth
0.559 (.215) 0.553 (.154) 0.776 (.25) 0.618 (.325) 0.73 (.263) 0.678 (.254) 0.763 (. 276) 0.678 (.302) 0.669 (.27) .000
Time management .921 (.183) .921 (.183) .921 (.183) .921 (.183) .921 (.183) .921 (.183) .921 (.183) .921 (.183) .921 (.183) 1.000
Total of 10 8.02 (1.06) 7. 52 (.743) 7.78 (1.04) 6.82 (1.50) 7.80 (1.17) 7.57 (.885) 7.88 (1.17) 7.4 1 ( 1 .32 ) 7. 60 (1 .1 8) .000
aExaminer (N = 76).
|
5
HABIB
provides useful feedback on areas of strength and weaknesses of
each parameter, and criterion can be weighted to reflect the relative
importance of each dimension. Using analytic rubrics by the junior
faculty members for evaluation of the undergraduate student’s pre-
clinical work to overcome the faculty shortage in dental schools is
another useful advantage. In a study by Al Amri et al6 it was reported
that the level of exper tise (junior vs senior faculty) did not affect
the pre- clinical evaluation using rubrics. It is logical to conclude that
junior faculty will do more accurate evaluations using analytic ru-
brics than global method of grading compared to senior faculty who
can overcome the inaccuracies/disadvantages of global grading with
their experience and exper tise. However, using rubrics consumes
more time compared to the global method of grading and unless
each criterion for individual parameter in rubrics is well defined the
chances of interexaminer variation in the scoring are high.
We hypothesised that the use of analy tic rubrics could increase
the consistency of grades amongst the different examiners. The re-
sults of this study showed an average score of 7.6 of 10 (76%) by
the eight examiners for the par ticipating students. For most of the
examiners (6 of 8), their average score was well in line with the over-
all score. E xception was for examiner 1 (average score 8.02 ± 1.06)
and examiner 4 (average score 6.82 ± 1.50) who tended to grade
higher and lower than the rest of the examiners, respectively. The
grades awarded by the examiner 1 were on the higher side but still
within reasonable limits. The mean difference between the grades
of Examiner 1 (8.02) and the Examiner 8 (7.41) whose grades were
the lowest other than Examiner 4 was 0.61, whilst the mean differ-
ence between the grades of Examiner 4 (6.82) and the Examiner 7
(7.88) whose grades were the highest other than Examiner 1 was
1.06. With these results, it was evident that the Examiner 4 was not
well trained/calibrated in using the rubric. However, it was evident
that majority of the examiners had some agreement/consistency
amongst their awarded grades. This finding of the current study is
in line with the findings of Satheesh et al2 who reported increased
reliability of 90.2% with the use of analy tic rubrics in their research
stud y.
Parameter Examiner 123456 7 8
Occlusal
reduction
2.983 - 1.00 .000 1.00 .500 1.0 0 .018
3.992 1.00 - .000 1.00 .422 1.00 .012
4.000 .000 .000 - .000 .175 .000 .942
5.967 1.00 1.00 .000 - .580 1.00 .026
6.074 .500 .422 .175 .580 - .50 0 .860
7.983 1.00 1.0 0 .000 1.00 .500 - .018
8.001 .018 .012 .942 .026 .860 .018 -
Axial
reduction
2.999 - 1.00 .000 .997 1.00 1.00 .459
3.997 1.00 - .000 .987 1.00 1.00 .580
4.000 .000 .000 - .000 .000 .000 .014
51.00 .997 .987 .000 - .964 .999 .112
6.987 1.00 1.00 .000 .964 - 1.00 .700
71.00 1.00 1.00 .000 .999 1.00 - .401
8.171 .459 .580 . 014 .112 .700 .401 -
Tap e r 2.000 - .436 .988 .366 .794 .066 .995
3.066 .436 - .068 1.00 .999 .988 .896
4.000 .988 .068 - .050 .247 .004 .731
5.089 .366 1.00 .050 - .998 .995 .850
6.012 .794 .999 .247 .998 - .850 .995
7.436 .066 .988 .004 .995 .850 - .366
8.001 .995 . 896 .731 .850 .995 .366 -
Margin
placement
2.005 - .000 .000 .000 .957 .045 .000
3.998 .000 - 1.00 .998 .023 .892 .9 98
4.957 .000 1.00 - 1.00 .005 .6 49 1.00
5.892 .000 .998 1.00 - .002 .498 1.00
6.145 .957 .023 .0 02 .003 - .498 .003
7.998 .045 .892 .649 .498 .498 - . 521
8.904 .000 .998 1.00 1.00 .003 . 521 -
*P value was significant at P < .05.
TABLE3 Results of post hoc Tukey
test* comparing the score of 8 examiners
within each major parameter
6
|
HABIB
Analytical rubric system helps in providing the students with
a detailed feedback making it easier for them to receive much in-
formation from their marks about each of the criteria. They can
find the exact areas of their strengths and weaknesses with the
provision of detailed result, without the need for specific com-
ments from their instructors.13 Within the individual preparation
parameters investigated in the current study, the parameter/cri-
teria in which the students scored the least were axial reduction.
The mean score for the axial reduction was 0.845 of 1.5 (56.33%).
Proper axial reduc tion is essential to provide enough space for
allowing good functional morphology and structural durability.
Vertical depth grooves are per formed in the vestibular sur face
with a tapered diamond bur followed by removing the tooth struc-
ture in bet ween the grooves. The placement of depth grooves
helps to control the amount of reduc tion. Rosella et al14 reported
these criteria to be the most demanding challenge for prostho-
dontist s, that is to control the depth and direction of tooth tissue
removal.
Parameter Examiner 12345678
Two plane
reduction
2.061 - .751 .015 .031 .914 1.0 0 .000
3.870 .7 51 - .601 .751 .084 .445 .084
41.00 .015 .601 - 1.00 .000 .003 .970
51.00 .031 . 751 1.00 - .000 .0 07 .914
6.001 .914 .084 .000 .000 - .993 .000
7.015 1.00 .4 45 .003 .0 07 .993 - .000
8.815 .000 .084 .970 .94 .000 .000 -
Finishing of
margins and
walls
2.019 - . 551 .94 0 .971 . 274 .002 .147
3.827 . 551 - .996 .988 1.00 .451 .996
4.357 .940 .996 - 1.00 .940 .102 .827
5.2 74 .971 .988 1.00 - .893 .070 .745
6.971 .2 74 1.00 .940 .893 - .745 1.00
7.999 .002 .451 .102 .070 .745 - .893
8.996 .147 .996 .827 .745 1.0 0 .893 -
Preservation
of adjacent
tissues
21.00 - .000 .7 74 .001 .0 62 .000 .062
3.000 .000 - .005 .958 .274 1.00 . 274
4.856 .7 74 .005 - .14 0 .856 .015 .856
5.001 .0 01 .958 .14 0 - .917 .994 .917
6.095 .0 62 .2 74 .856 .917 - .46 4 1.00
7.000 .000 1.00 .015 .994 .464 - .46 4
8.095 .0 62 .2 74 .856 .917 1.00 .464 -
*P value was significant at P < .05.
TABLE4 Results of post hoc Tukey
test* comparing the score of 8 examiners
within each minor parameter
FIGURE1 Graphical comparison of
assessments by 8 examiners for major
paramaters
|
7
HABIB
Another important criterion, where the students underper-
formed, was preservation of adjacent teeth and tissues. The mean
score for this criterion was 0.669 ± .27 of 1 (66.9%). Even though
this score was above the minimum 60% passing score but was con-
sidered unacceptable because of its irreversible damage. Unlike
other human tissues, dental tissues do not have regenerative capac-
it y.15 Therefore, the removal of dental biological material should be
planned and executed with maximum attention and care.
Based on the results of the study, variations were obser ved
within the various parameters for the examiners. According to the
rubric for the majority of the parameters, there was consistency in
grades awarded by the examiners except for the two plane reduc-
tion. Mays et al10 described the total occlusal convergence or taper
to be the most challenging parameter for the examiners. In the cur-
rent study, variabilit y amongst the examiners was also observed
for the taper; however, it was the two plane reduction where major
differences were noted. The reason could be the geometrical simi-
larity between the taper and the two plane reduction. With visual
inspection, the estimation of these angles is fairly challenging for
the examiners and chances of underestimation and overestimation
of these parameters are high.16
One of the challenging aspect s of managing a pre- clinical fixed
prosthodontic course is finding enough time to meet with students
during and outside of scheduled laboratory timings sessions to
provide feedback. The dental students these days have competing
academic responsibilities, and it is difficult to find time for meeting
with them.8 However, the use of analytic rubrics for the assessment
of tooth preparation c an provide students with instant and objec-
tive feedback. They leave the examination with identified areas of
weaknesses and can inquire via email or whenever convenient for
the faculty to get information on how to address those weaknesses.
A possible limitation of this research as well as generally with
analytical systems is that often the aggregate of the whole is less
than its parts or vice versa and examiners may find that the marks
awarded from analytical system do not “feel” right. An example
might come from applying an analytical marking scheme within this
pre- clinical research study, which awards zero marks to a very im-
portant component but overall the student gets benefit from the
sum of total component s and is able to successfully get the passing
mark for the course. Even though from the examiners’ point of view,
the students deserve to be failed for the irreversible damage caused
by the student within that individual parameter.
The ultimate objective of pre- clinical dental education is to pre-
pare students for delivering the best possible dental care to their pa-
tients in the clinics. The students then build on the foundation created
in the pre- clinical courses and the learning persists during their more
advanced clinical courses. In a study by Velayo et al4 the pre- clinical
performance was positively correlated with clinical success. Students
who are found weak in practical domain can continue to do extra prac-
tice to improve their psychomotor skills.17
Limitation of the current study is that it was conducted at one
dental school and the result s cannot be generalised as well as it
should be interpreted with caution. The time management parame-
ter can be omitted, and its value can be added to the parameters two
plane reduction and preservation of adjacent teeth. The author sug-
gests revision of the analytic rubric used in the study whilst keep-
ing in consideration the irreversible procedure of tooth preparation.
Continuous revision of the rubric is mandatory to ensure its efficacy
for measuring intended criteria.
5 | CONCLUSIONS
The resul ts of this study su ggest that criter ia- based asse ssment using
analytic rubric for crown preparations in pre- clinical fixed prostho-
dontics set- up is an ef fective tool for finding the errors/weak areas
of the dental students. Amongst the tooth preparation parameters
investigated in this study, axial reduction followed by the damage to
the adjacent teeth was the areas of weaknesses found for the par-
ticipating students. For majority of the examiners, a consistency in
the evaluations was observed whilst using rubrics used in this study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is thankful to Mr. Nassr Maflehi for his help in the statis-
tical analysis. The research project was approved and supported by
the College of Dentistry Research Center (Registration number FR
0395) and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University.
FIGURE2 Graphical comparison of
assessments by 8 examiners for minor
paramaters
8
|
HABIB
ORCID
S. R. Habib http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4398-3479
REFERENCES
1. Fayaz A, Mazahery A, Hosseinzadeh M, Yazdanpanah S. Video-
based learning versus traditional method for preclinical course
of complete denture fabrication. J Dent (Shiraz). 2015;16(1
Suppl):21-28.
2. Satheesh KM, Brockmann LB, Liu Y, Gadbury-Amyot CC. Use of
an analy tical grading r ubric for self- assessment: a pilot study for
a periodontal oral competency examination in predoctoral dental
education. J Dent Educ. 2015 ;79:1429-143 6.
3. Field MJ, ed. Dental Education at The Crossroads: Challenges and
Change. A n Institute of Medicine Report. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press; 1995.
4. Velayo BC, Stark PC, Eisen SE, Kugel G. Using dental student s’ pre-
clinical performance as an indicator of clinic al success. J Dent Educ.
2014;78:823-828.
5. Gottlieb R, Baechle MA, Janus C, L anning SK. Predicting perfor-
mance in technical preclinical dent al courses using advanced simu-
lation. J Dent Educ. 20 17;81:101-109.
6. Al Amri MD, Sherfudhin HR, Habib SR. Effect s of evaluator’s fa-
tigue and level of expertise on the global and analytic al evaluation
of preclinical toot h prepar ation. J Prosthodont. 2016; https://doi.
org/10.1111/jopr.12558. [Epub ahead of print]
7. Morrow JA , Pulido MT, Smith PB, McDaniel TF, Willcox AB.
Effective use of e- grading in the dental simulation clinic. J Dent
Educ. 2014;78:829-837.
8. Hamil LM, Mennito AS, Renné WG, Vuthiganon J. Dental students’
opinions of preparation assessment with E4D compare soft ware
versus traditional methods. J Dent Educ. 2014;78:1424-1431 .
9. Park CF, Sheinbaum JM, Tamada Y, et al. Dental students’ percep-
tions of digital assessment software for preclinical tooth prepara-
tion exercises. J Dent Educ. 2017;81:597-603.
10. Mays KA, Crisp HA , Vos P. Utilizing CAD/CAM to measure total
occlusal convergence of preclinical dental students’ crown prepara-
tions. J Dent Educ. 2016;8 0:10 0-107.
11. Dhur u VB, Rypel TS, Johnston WM. Criterion- oriented grading
system for preclinical operative dentistry laboratory course. J Dent
Educ. 1978;42:528-531.
12. Allen D, Tanner K . Rubrics: tools for making learning goals and eval-
uation criteria explicit for b oth teachers and learners. CBE Life Sci
Educ. 2006;5:197-203.
13. Jonsson A, Svingby G. The use of scoring rubric s: reliability, va-
lidity, and educational consequences. Educ Res Rev. 2007;2:
13 0 -14 4 .
14. Rosella D, Rosella G, Brauner E, Papi P, Piccoli L, Pompa G. A
tooth preparation technique in fixed prosthodontics for students
and neophyte dentists. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2016;6:10 4-109.
https://doi.org/10.11138/ads/2015.6.3.104. eCollection 2015
Jul-Dec.
15. Goodacre C J, Compagni WV, Aquilino SA. Tooth preparations
for complete crowns: an art form based on scientific principles. J
Prosthet Dent. 2011;85:363-376.
16. Nick DR, Clar k M, Miller J, Ordelheide C, Goodacre C, Kim J. The
ability of dental students and faculty to estimate the total occlu-
sal convergence of prepared teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 20 09;101:
7-12 .
17. Chaiken SR, Kyllonen PC, Tirre WC . Organization and components
of psychomotor ability. Cogn Psychol. 2000;40:198-226.
How to cite this article: Habib SR. Rubric system for
evaluation of crown preparation performed by dental
students. Eur J Dent Educ. 2018; 00 :1– 8.
https ://doi.or g/10.1111/eje.12333
