JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Dent Educ. 68(12): 1228-1234 2004
© 2004 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kournetas, N.
Right arrow Articles by Geis-Gerstorfer, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kournetas, N.
Right arrow Articles by Geis-Gerstorfer, J.

Educational Methodologies

Assessing the Reliability of a Digital Preparation Assistant System Used in Dental Education

Nikos Kournetas, D.D.S.; Berthold Jaeger, D.D.S., Dr.Med.Dent.; Detlef Axmann, Dr.Rer.Nat.; Martin Groten, D.D.S., Dr.Med.Dent.; Stefan Lachmann, D.D.S., Dr.Med.Dent.; Heiner Weber, D.D.S., Ph.D.; Juergen Geis-Gerstorfer, Dr.Rer.Nat., Dipl.Ing.

Key words: preclinical dental education, PREPassist, accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility, measurement error, limits of agreement

Submitted for publication 05/17/04; accepted 09/23/04


Use of a digital preparation assistant system may improve considerably the quality of preclinical dental education, provided the system works reliably. Thus, the purpose of this pilot study was to quantitatively assess the reliability of a new preclinical digital preparation assistant system (PREPassist, KaVo, Germany). The system was used to repeatedly scan four different unprepared and four different prepared teeth both with and without repositioning. Corresponding measurements were made to quantify accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility. This was done by estimating the measurement error. Based on this estimation, respective limits of agreement were calculated. We used these ranges, along with assessments of the measurement’s accuracy, to judge whether the results satisfy our expectations for clinically acceptable measurements. For preclinical laboratory instruction, the results indicate an acceptable accuracy (mean accuracy of 89 µm) of the measurements. This assessment applies as well to repeatability, given by the range of the respective limits of agreement (range <200 µm). However, in the case of reproducibility, the limits revealed discrepancies of practical importance (range >200 µm). Reproducibility of tooth repositioning in the available mounting device is unacceptable for preclinical laboratory instruction because of the observed range >200 µm. Thus, there is a need for the manufacture of new and more reliable mounting devices because reproducibility procedures are mostly encountered in preclinical instruction in restorative techniques. In contrast to reproducibility, accuracy and repeatability are acceptable for practical purposes. Balancing advantages and disadvantages, we conclude that, in general, the PREPassist system delivers reliable results.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Dental Education Association.