2012 Volume 55 Issue 4 Pages 278-284
Purpose: Dental students receive basic practice training in order to acquire the necessary techniques as well as clinical knowledge in dental education. This study evaluated the practice tests carried out by the clinicians in charge or the guiding clinical staff who may have different levels of experience in doing these tasks, and so their evaluations may also differ depending on their experience. The objective of the present study was to statistically compare the evaluations by different evaluators. In addition, the evaluation obtained using a laser irradiation marking device was compared with those measured by the evaluators. Materials and Methods: The objects used for evaluation were 108 teeth employed for access preparation by third-year dental students for their practice examination in basic endodontic practice at the Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine. Six evaluators with different clinical experience participated in this study. Five items were selected for evaluation of access preparation: outline of access cavity, removal of roof of pulp chamber, condition of cavity wall, condition of chamber floor, and presence/absence of perforation. These evaluations were made by both the six evaluators and the laser irradiation marking device and then the results were statistically compared. Results: As for the evaluations, although there was a statistically significant difference between Evaluator C and the other evaluators, no significant difference was observed among the other evaluators. With regard to the agreement for the five evaluation items, there was a low degree of agreement for items 1 through 4, and a higher degree of agreement for item 5. Furthermore, as for item 1, Evaluator C and E showed a statistically significant difference compared with the other evaluators. For item 2, there was a statistically significant difference between the following groups: Evaluator A and C, D, E, F, Evaluator B and C, D, E, F, Evaluator D and E, F and Evaluator E and all other evaluators. For item 3, a significant difference between the following groups was observed: Evaluator A and B, D, Evaluator B and C, E, F, Evaluator C and D and Evaluator D and E, E For item 4, Evaluator D and E showed a statistically significant difference compared with the other evaluators. However, for item 5, there was no statistically significant difference with the other evaluators. Comparing the machine and the evaluators, the five evaluators excluding Evaluator E all showed a significant difference. Conclusion: The results of this study indicated differences in evaluation among the evaluators for most of the evaluation items. Using a number of evaluation items seemed to help achieve a balanced evaluation. Evaluation of endodontic access preparation on artificial teeth using a laser irradiation marking device could be a useful method.
