Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 25, 2026
Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
Published on: January 10, 2025
Evaluation of Preclinical Class II Composite Restoration Performed by Dental Students Using Analytic Rubric
Arwa Daghrery1, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira2, Saeed Awod Bin Hassan3
1Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Aim:
There is currently a limited studies regarding the application of analytic rubrics for assessing student's performance in preclinical tasks. This study aimed to examine the use of a validated rubric structure to measure the performance outcomes of preclinical dental students conducting Class II composite restorations.
Methods:
Validated analytical rubric for evaluation of preclinical class II composite cavity preparation and restoration was used at preclinical phase by two male examiners, who were further calibrated before the assessments using the rubric. Scoring was based on a 4-point scale for assessment and evaluation of two parameters: cavity preparation (40 points) and restoration (20 points). Descriptive statistics were applied to calculate rubric parameters, while independent t-tests compared scores across examiners and between student genders and groups. The associations between Grade Point Average (GPA), evaluators, and the gender of participants, both Pearson's correlation coefficient and the Kappa test were utilized.
Results:
Overall mean scores were marginally elevated for female participants relative to their counterparts (54.71 vs 52.92) across cavity preparation (36.71 vs 34.87) and restoration parameters (18.00 vs 18.06). Among cavity preparation parameters, only the finishing of the cavity preparation rubric parameters demonstrated a significant difference (p<0.05). For the class II composite restoration parameter steps, we found no overall differences (p ≥ 0.050), except a gender significant difference in matrix band application and anatomy steps (p=0.022 and 0.034, respectively). Significant difference between gender was recorded by the first evaluator (p=0.006), with a significantly higher overall average (p=0.047). A strong and significant correlation was documented between participant GPA and specific evaluated parameters (p=0.000).
Conclusion:
Within this preclinical setting, gender-based variations were evident across all assessed procedural parameters. Additionally, variability was observed between the two examiners, with agreement levels ranging from fair to moderate, and in some instances, reaching perfect agreement.
