The problems associated with intra- and interexaminer reliability when assessing preclinical performance continue to hinder dental educators' ability to provide accurate and meaningful feedback to students. Many studies have been conducted to evaluate the validity of utilizing various technologies to assist educators in achieving that goal. The purpose of this study was to compare two different versions of E4D Compare software to determine if either could be expected to deliver consistent and reliable comparative results, independent of the individual utilizing the technology. Five faculty members obtained E4D digital images of students' attempts (sample model) at ideal gold crown preparations for tooth #30 performed on typodont teeth. These images were compared to an ideal (master model) preparation utilizing two versions of E4D Compare software. The percent correlations between and within these faculty members were recorded and averaged. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to measure both inter- and intrarater agreement among the examiners. The study found that using the older version of E4D Compare did not result in acceptable intra- or interrater agreement among the examiners. However, the newer version of E4D Compare, when combined with the Nevo scanner, resulted in a remarkable degree of agreement both between and within the examiners. These results suggest that consistent and reliable results can be expected when utilizing this technology under the protocol described in this study.
Keywords: CAD/CAM; assessment; dental education; grading; interrater reliability; intrarater reliability.