Limitations of surface mapping technology in accurately identifying critical errors in dental students' crown preparations

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Planmeca Compare software in identifying and quantifying a common critical error in dental students' crown preparations. In 2014-17, a study was conducted at one U.S. dental school that evaluated an ideal crown prep made by a faculty member on a dentoform to modified preps. Two types of preparation errors were created by the addition of flowable composite to the occlusal surface of identical dies of the preparations to represent the underreduction of the distolingual cusp. The error was divided into two classes: The minor class allowed for 1 mm of occlusal clearance, and the major class allowed for no occlusal clearance. The preparations were then digitally evaluated against the ideal preparation using Planmeca Compare. Percent comparison values were obtained from each trial and averaged together. False positives and false negatives were also identified and used to determine the accuracy of the evaluation. Critical errors that did not involve a substantial change in the surface area of the preparation were inconsistently identified. Within the limitations of this study, the authors concluded that the Compare software was unable to consistently identify common critical errors within an acceptable degree of error.