Azhari Amr Ahmed, Ahmed Walaa Magdy, Almaghrabi Raghad, Almalki Aroob, Merdad Yasser, Alrefai Hind J, Bahrawi Mawadah T, Kordi Lama Faisal
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Internship Program, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Dent J. 2024 Sep;36(9):1253-1259. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.07.005. Epub 2024 Jul 6.
This study aimed to evaluate the intra- and inter-grader reliability of four evaluators using three different digital intraoral scanners and visual methods for typodontic Class II composite preparations.
Ninety-five typodont teeth of Class II composite preparations were evaluated using traditional visual grading methods (VGM) and digital grading methods (DGM) using the same rubric. Three intraoral scanners were used to scan the Class II cavity preparation for the composite: i700 (Medit, Korea), Trios 4 (3Shape, Denmark), and Shinning 3D (Shinning 3D, China). The same rubric was used to score the visual and digital evaluations by calibrated examiners. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare method- and evaluator-based scores, accounting for the scanner type used.
The scores of the prepped typodont teeth were subjected to an interaction between the examiner and the evaluation technique. In addition, the mean total prepped teeth scores differed between examiners using VGM. A statistically significant interaction emerged between examiners and the evaluation technique employed to assess the total score of the prepped teeth: (9, 1504) = 3.893, = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.023. The total prepped tooth score differed between the VGM and DGM groups. Lower ( < 0.05) intra-grader consistency was observed for the final scores when Class II preparations were evaluated using the VGM; however, this consistency improved when using the DGM.
Examiners and evaluation methods affect student performance in Class II cavity preparations. The DGM may be more reliable and consistent within and between evaluators than the VGM is.
本研究旨在评估四名评估者使用三种不同的数字口腔内扫描仪和视觉方法对Ⅱ类义齿复合树脂修复体进行评估时的分级内及分级间可靠性。
使用传统视觉分级方法(VGM)和数字分级方法(DGM),采用相同的评分标准,对95颗Ⅱ类义齿复合树脂修复体进行评估。使用三台口腔内扫描仪对Ⅱ类复合树脂修复体窝洞进行扫描:i700(韩国Medit公司)、Trios 4(丹麦3Shape公司)和Shining 3D(中国先临三维公司)。由经过校准的检查者使用相同的评分标准对视觉和数字评估进行评分。采用双向方差分析比较基于方法和评估者的评分,并考虑所使用的扫描仪类型。
预备义齿的评分受到检查者和评估技术之间的交互作用影响。此外,使用VGM的检查者之间,预备牙齿的平均总评分存在差异。在检查者和用于评估预备牙齿总分的评估技术之间出现了具有统计学意义的交互作用:F(9, 1504) = 3.893,P = 0.001,偏η² = 0.023。VGM组和DGM组之间预备牙齿的总评分存在差异。使用VGM评估Ⅱ类修复体时,最终评分的分级内一致性较低(P < 0.05);然而,使用DGM时,这种一致性有所提高。
检查者和评估方法会影响学生在Ⅱ类窝洞预备中的表现。与VGM相比,DGM在评估者内部和评估者之间可能更可靠且更具一致性。