Bialas Marina Julia, Schmid Jonas Q, Middelberg Claudius, Stamm Thomas, Blanck-Lubarsch Moritz
Department of Orthodontics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
J Dent Educ. 2025 Aug;89(8):1233-1242. doi: 10.1002/jdd.13815. Epub 2024 Dec 19.
There is a lack of evidence on whether a grading system or a pass/fail system influences manual skills in dental education. This parallel-group randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the influence of a 15-point grading system compared with a pass/fail evaluation on the quality of orthodontic appliances in dental education.
Predoctoral dental students of three orthodontic courses (n = 139) were randomly assigned to either the test group (15-point grading system) or the control group (pass/fail) using sealed envelopes. In both groups, the fabricated orthodontic appliances were assessed by five calibrated dentists using standard criteria. The primary outcome was the quality of the orthodontic appliances using a 15-point grading system. Group differences were evaluated with Mann-Whitney U tests and Fisher ́s exact tests.
The quality of the orthodontic appliances was slightly higher in the test group (n = 68) compared with the control group (n = 70) in all three courses with mean grading values of 11.63 ± 0.75 versus 11.59 ± 0.99, 10.96 ± 0.83 versus 10.85 ± 0.82, and 10.93 ± 1.15 versus 10.14 ± 1.03. However, a statistically significant difference was found only in course 3 (p = 0.0222). Female participants performed better than males in all three courses (p = 0.0207).
The implementation of a 15-point grading system has a positive impact on the quality of appliances in orthodontic education and can be recommended. However, the differences were small and clinically meaningful in only one of the three courses evaluated.
关于评分系统或及格/不及格系统是否会影响牙科教育中的操作技能,目前缺乏证据。这项平行组随机对照试验旨在评估在牙科教育中,与及格/不及格评估相比,15分评分系统对正畸矫治器质量的影响。
使用密封信封将三门正畸课程的牙科预博士学生(n = 139)随机分为试验组(15分评分系统)或对照组(及格/不及格)。在两组中,由五名经过校准的牙医使用标准标准对制作的正畸矫治器进行评估。主要结果是使用15分评分系统评估正畸矫治器的质量。使用曼-惠特尼U检验和费舍尔精确检验评估组间差异。
在所有三门课程中,试验组(n = 68)正畸矫治器的质量略高于对照组(n = 70),平均评分值分别为11.63±0.75对11.59±0.99、10.96±0.83对10.85±0.82、10.93±1.15对10.14±1.03。然而,仅在课程3中发现有统计学显著差异(p = 0.0222)。在所有三门课程中,女性参与者的表现均优于男性(p = 0.0207)。
15分评分系统的实施对正畸教育中矫治器的质量有积极影响,值得推荐。然而,差异很小,且仅在评估的三门课程中的一门课程中具有临床意义。