Dental Grading System

Introduction
A variety of assessment methods for practical tasks common in the dental education have been suggested over the years (Kramer et al., 2009; Miller, 1990). An ideal assessment would be among other things reliable, objective and feasible (Turnbull, Gray, & MacFadyen, 1998) but in reality most if not all tools cannot fulfill this requirements for a number of reasons (Taylor, Grey, & Satterthwaite, 2013). Nevertheless using a standardized, reproducible grading system can be useful in approaching those ideals. The use of procedure-specific, structured checklists has been reported to be reliable, valid and feasible for a various clinical tasks (Ahmed, Miskovic, Darzi, Athanasiou, & Hanna, 2011; Reznick, 1993; Winckel, Reznick, Cohen, & Taylor, 1994). Other studies did not reach the same conclusion and stated that the use of checklists might not be superior over a simple “glance and grade” approach in each case (Sharaf, AbdelAziz, & El Meligy, 2007). However, grading clinical procedures against criteria on checklists remains a valid and practical approach which is well accepted by students (Chadwick & Mason, 1997). In the following section we describe how the clinic for periodontology, endodontology and carieologie (PEK) at the University of Basel has introduced such a system in 2012 as part of the ongoing effort to improve the

The contour of the marginal ridge as well as overhanging restorations play an important part in survival (Loomans, Roeters, Opdam, & Kuijs, 2008) of the filling and periodontal health (Than, Duguid, & McKendrick, 1982). Rubber dam and matrices placement on the other hand were graded above average (p clinical assessment program. J Dent Educ, 70(5),