Abstract
To examine the evaluation method used for preclinical tooth modeling practice, we examined cavity and abutment tooth preparation technique evaluations performed by teachers and morphometry findings obtained by a 3D laser sensor. Our comparison results and findings of a questionnaire given to students were analyzed, with the following findings obtained.
1.With grading by teachers, the average number of approved evaluation items was 4.2 of 6, with some variations in item-by-item pass/fail results.
2.With evaluation by machine, there was a tendency for difference between students who scored 60 points more and those who scored less than 60 points.
3.With evaluation by machine, the number of approved items per student for the item-by-item evaluation was greater for students who scored less than 60 points as compared to those who scored 60 or more points.
4.In addition to the opinions “Machine grading is highly fair” and “Teacher grading is easier to understand”, “The difference between teacher grading and machine grading was confusing” was com monly noted.
The present study revealed differences between evaluations performed by machine and those performed by teachers. However, half of the surveyed students did not note a difference between machine and teacher grading, and many stated that it would be easier to understand if side-by-side images displaying the model cavity and student-made cavity were available. Thus, we consider it necessary to examine our grading methods using software and provide easily understood feedback regarding grading results to the students.
