Utilizing self-assessment software to evaluate student wax-ups in dental morphology.

Traditionally, evaluating student work in preclinical courses has relied on the judgment of experienced clinicians utilizing visual inspection. However, research has shown significant disagreement between different evaluators (interrater reliability) and between results from the same evaluator at different times (intrarater reliability). This study evaluated a new experimental software (E4D Compare) to compare 66 student-produced tooth wax-ups at one U.S. dental school to an ideal standard after both had been digitally scanned. Using 3D surface-mapping technology, a numerical evaluation was generated by calculating the surface area of the student's work that was within a set range of the ideal. The aims of the study were to compare the reliability of faculty and software grades and to determine the ideal tolerance value for the software. The investigators hypothesized that the software would provide more consistent feedback than visual grading and that a tolerance value could be determined that closely correlated with the faculty grade. The results showed that a tolerance level of 450 µm provided 96% agreement of grades compared with only 53% agreement for faculty. The results suggest that this software could be used by faculty members as a mechanism to evaluate student work and for students to use as a self-assessment tool.