computer‐aided 3D analysis of cavities via prepCheck - a pilot study A. Stumpf 1, P. Weigl 2, T. Gerhardt 1, R. Felber 2, D. Heidemann 1, S. Gerhardt-Szép 1 1 Policlinic of Conservative Dentistry, Goethe‐University Frankfurt a.M., Germany 2 Policlinic of Prosthodontics, Goethe‐University Frankfurt a.M., Germany Objectives Results Cavity preparations play an essential role in education [1]. Despite the problematical supervision rate [2] due to a raising number of students [3], the educational quality assurance including the assessment must be ensured [2]. Students are often insecure about their cavity preparations and their assessment is often influenced by subjective parameters. Systems for the process automation are only partly available [4,5]. So far, there is no convenient software for the analysis of cavity preparations. The response rate was 100%. For the assessment of the cavities via prepCheck, it was helpful (in comparison without that help) ... Mean (SD) ... to evaluate sharp edges on the inner angles of the cavities 1,60 ± 0,89 („Surface“ – are pictured orange) („Undercut“ – are pictured yellow-orange) 1,40 ± 0,55 The opportunity of evaluating the layer thickness of a restauration via prepCheck is helpful. 1,80 ± 0,84 ... to see undercuts in the insert direction. A modern 3D system (prepCheck, Sirona), which can automatically and objectively measure and analyze preparations, was analyzed in the first clinical semester. Is the system suitable for the assessment of cavity preparations in the conservative dentistry? How do the students evaluate the new system overall? Mean (SD) It is helpful to assess the finished restauration in advance. Methods I find working with the prepCheck helpful for exam preparation. In order to untertake the study, several steps were taken: • Project schedule for the implementation • Expert committee + train the teacher • Technical arrangements + master preparations • Developing Evaluation sheets I believe that I can learn how to preparate teeth just with support of prepCheck and without any help of an assistant professor. 1,00 ± 0,00 1,40 ± 0,55 2,80 ± 0,84 1,00 ± 0,00 I can recommend the prepCheck my fellow students. Pilot study Criterion for inclusion Students who passed the first clinical semester sucessfully Students from the second clinical semester Neither experience with Cerec nor with prepCheck Criterion for exclusion Students who did not pass the first clinical semester sucessfully yet Students from other semesters Mean (SD) Please mark prepCheck with school grades. (1=very good, 2=good, 3=satisfactory, 4=adequate, 5=inadequate, 6= insufficient) 1,60 ± 0,55 Working with prepCheck was easy. (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) Students with experience in the Cerec and/or prepCheck software Number Male Female Age 5 3 2 21-29 1,80 ± 0,45 Conclusion Future prospects: 1. Train the student • in the use of Cerec and prepCheck www.frasaco.com 2. preparation and use of prepCheck • the CerecAC (Omnicam/Bluecam) and the analysis software prepCheck were used to compare and evaluate the student preparation with the previously created master preparation. 3. Evaluation The evaluation was conducted by a questionnaire •36 items •Likert scale 1-5 (1 =„strongly agree“ to 5 =„strongly disagree“) •School grades 1-6 (1 =„very good“ to 6 =„insufficient“) •Questions focused on the concept to learn with prepCheck and the personal learning style of the students. the participants rated the computer‐aided 3D analysis of cavities via prepCheck consistently positive. References 1. Curriculum Zahnmedizin 2012 2. Wissenschaftsrat 2005: Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung der Zahnmedizin an den Universitäten in Deutschland. 3. German Federal Office of Statistics 2012 4. Jasinevicius 2004 (DentSim) 5. Kournetas 2004 (Prep Assistant) Contact Cand. med. dent. Annika Stumpf, e-mail: [email protected]