ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Evaluation of Preclinical Class II Composite Restoration Performed by Dental Students Using Analytic Rubric Parameters.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.