# Evaluation of the use of a guided bur during preclinical teaching of tooth preparation: A pilot study

Soho Yee, Raphaël Richert, Gilbert Viguie, Sébastien Couraud, Marion Dehurevent, Michel Fages, Pascale Corne, Maxime Ducret

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Soho Yee, Raphaël Richert, Gilbert Viguie, Sébastien Couraud, Marion Dehurevent, et al. Evaluation of the use of a guided bur during preclinical teaching of tooth preparation: A pilot study. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research, 2019, 5 (6), 10.1002/cre2.184. hal-04803776

HAL Id: hal-04803776

https://hal.science/hal-04803776v1

Submitted on 25 Nov 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

WILEY Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
(Open Access)

# Evaluation of the use of a guided bur during preclinical teaching of tooth preparation: A pilot study

Soho Yee<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />* | Raphaël Richert<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />* | Gilbert Viguie<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> | Sébastien Couraud<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" /> |

Marion Dehurevent<fnref n="5" /> | Michel Fages<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" /> ID | Pascale Corne<fnref n="8" /> ID | Maxime Ducret<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="9" /> ID

Correspondence

Maxime Ducret, Laboratoire de Biologie
Tissulaire et Ingénierie thérapeutique, Institut
de Biologie et Chimie des Protéines, 7 passage
du Vercors, 69367 Lyon, France.

Email: maxime.ducret@ibcp.fr

Abstract

**Objectives:** An innovative calibrated bur, aiming to improve precision during reduction of the incisal edge, was recently proposed to guide practitioners during tooth preparation. However, limited information is available concerning its usefulness in dental preclinical education. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether using this innovative guided bur improves learning experience quality and the performance of students during tooth preparation.

**Material and methods:** After having provided written consent, 60 second-year students were divided into two groups. One group used a 1-mm rounded bur to perform depth grooves, whereas the second group used the innovative guided bur, consisting in a 2-mm-depth marker with a stopping surface. Once the grooves were obtained, they were then connected using the same wheel bur in both groups. The aim was to obtain a final 2-mm reduction of the incisal edge. Quality of the learning experience (stress level, motivation to restart, self-evaluation of the preparation, and difficulty) was quantified using a visual analog scale. Duration of the procedure was also measured in both groups. 3D measurements for each tooth were performed using an STL comparison software.

**Results:** There were no significant differences between groups in terms of stress and self-evaluation of the preparation. Students in the guided bur group reported significantly lower perception of exercise difficulty (p < .001) and significantly higher motivation to restart the procedure (p < .001). The guided bur group performed the procedure in 16.4% less time than the rounded bur group. The use of the guided bur led to a 23% over-reduction, whereas the use of the rounded bur led to a 10% under-reduction.

**Conclusions:** Overall, the present study shows that the guided bur provides significant improvement in the student's learning experience with increased motivation and decreased perception of difficulty. It shortens the duration of procedure performance, but it also induces a reduction in preparation accuracy.

<footnote n="1">¹Faculté d'Odontologie, Université de Lyon,
Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service de
Consultations et Traitements Dentaires, Lyon,
France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Faculté de médecine et de maïeutique Lyon-
Sud, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1,
Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Service de Pneumologie Aiguë Spécialisée et
Cancérologie Thoracique, Centre Hospitalier
Lyon Sud, Pierre Bénite, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Faculté d'Odontologie, Université de Lille,
Lille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Prosthetic Department, Faculté
d'Odontologie de Montpellier, Montpellier,
France</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Laboratoire de Bioingénierie et Nanosciences
(LBN), Montpellier Université, Montpellier,
France</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Nancy School of Dentistry, University of
Lorraine, Nancy Cedex, France</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Laboratoire de Biologie Tissulaire et
Ingénierie thérapeutique, UMR5305
CNRS/Université Lyon 1, UMS3444
BioSciences Gerland-Lyon Sud, Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote>*Soho Yee and Raphaël Richert contributed equally to this work.</footnote>
KEYWORDS

dental education, prosthodontics, technique skills, virtual assessment software

1 | INTRODUCTION

Preclinical training in prosthetic dentistry is generally focused on acquiring knowledge, manual dexterity, and technical skills (Clancy, Lindquist, Palik, & Johnson, 2002). Acquisition of prosthetic psychomotor skills therefore requires regular practice in a wide range of clinical situations. However, due to the intensive nature of dental courses and limited school resources, student learning time is often restricted. An important aspect of training is the ability to visualize simultaneously all prosthetic parameters while performing the procedure (Güth et al., 2013; Habib, 2018; Mays & Branch-Mays, 2016). This is of particular importance for crown preparation. It is indeed reported that insufficient incisal reduction is one of the most frequent problems encountered during training (Christensen, 2007; Syed, Al-Moaleem, & Shariff, 2016). A recent strategy to improve quality of training proposes to concentrate on individual tasks, during initial learning, in order to reduce attention demands and increase knowledge recall (Winning, Malhotra, & Masters, 2018).

The evaluation of innovative learning strategies is well established and comprises several aspects, from technical performance (behavior evaluation) to learning experience and environment (Bates, 2004). Performance requires the use of scales and instruments to examine a range of variables during training (Bates, 2004). The learning experience is typically gauged through the learner's reactions, by assessing factors such as interest, motivation, difficulty, and attention levels (Bates, 2004). A positive learning experience is important for the well-being, academic achievement, and success of students (Brown, Williams, & Lynch, 2011; Hutchinson, 2003; Stormon, Ford, & Eley, 2018; Tiu et al., 2016). However, this has yet to be investigated in the field of prosthodontics preclinical training.

In 1977, Preston developed a "guided" technique to improve tooth preparation. The first step consisted in making depth grooves using a rounded diamond bur to then remove the portions between the orientation grooves. More recently, studies have reported that the use of guided burs may represent a valuable option to help dental students and dentists during tooth preparation (Fages & Bennasar, 2013; Fages, Bennasar, & Raynal, 2017). One study in particular reported that guided burs improve the quality of occlusal reduction, when performed by sixth-year dental students (Rosella et al., 2015). However, the authors of the study used different burs in a complex multitask procedure that could lead to cognitive overload when used with younger preclinical students. Indeed, performance can be disrupted if demands are increased by multitasking (Winning et al., 2018). Moreover, quality of occlusal reduction was assessed based on the visual evaluation without the use of a virtual tool that would have rendered the results more objective and accurate (Esser, Kerschbaum, Winkelmann, Krage, & Faber, 2006; Sadid-Zadeh & Feigenbaum, 2018; Tiu et al., 2016). The present investigation proposes to

overcome the limitation of visual evaluation by using a standardized computer-based approach and to limit the cognitive overload by using a simplified procedure.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of the guided bur on quality of learning experience and student performance (accuracy in reduction of the incisal edge; time for procedure performance) when comparing it with the use of the rounded bur during preclinical training of tooth preparation.

2 | MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1 | Study sample selection

Ethical approval was obtained from the local ethics committee (Comité éthique du CHU de Lyon, reference number 18-01). The study was conducted in 2018 in the Lyon teaching hospitals (Hospices Civils de Lyon, France). Sixty voluntary participants were selected from a pool of second-year dental students of the Dental Faculty (Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France). All participants provided written informed consent after having received information about the study. These students had received theoretical instruction but had no experience in preparing anterior ceramic crowns. Participants were randomly divided into two groups of equal size. The first group, defined as the control group, used Preston's technique (rounded bur with adequate protocol). The second group, or test group, received the guided bur protocol. Students were allowed to ask any questions concerning procedure details before starting the study.

2.2 | Incisal reduction

The goal of the present procedure was to achieve a 2-mm incisal reduction, in the axial direction, on artificial #11 typodont tooth (Figure 1a; tooth ref no. 0.63.1115, Kavo Dental, Lognes, France). First, the incisal reduction was initiated by performing three orientation grooves. The control group used a 1-mm rounded bur (ref no. 6801 314 010, Komet Dental, Lemgo, Germany) (Figure 1b), whereas the test group used a specific 2.0-mm-long and 0.9-mm-diameter guided bur with a stopping surface (ref no. MADC 20, NTi, Kahla, Germany; Figure 1c). The next step was to connect these grooves using a wheel bur (ref no. 818 040C-FG, NTi) to obtain a 2-mm calibrated reduction of the central incisal edge (Figure 1d).

2.3 | Method of measurement

Quality of the learning experience was quantified by each student answering four questions using a visual analog scale. The visual analog scale consisted in a straight horizontal line defined between 0 and
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** Protocol for incisal reduction and measurement. (a) Initial model; (b) grooves prepared twice using diamond rounded burs (1 mm in diameter); (c) grooves prepared using calibrated burs (2 mm in height); (d) model prepared after connecting the grooves using a wheel bur; and (e) depth of the preparation measured manually using digital tools, after matching to reference model. Please note that the presented model is under-reduced</figcaption></figure>

10 (0 being the lowest level of appreciation reported and 10 the highest). Questions included (a) determining levels of stress prior to performing the procedure (b) assessing motivation to restart the procedure, (c) visually self-evaluating their own preparation, and (d) assessing the level of difficulty of the procedure. Visual analog scales were converted in numerical values and rounded to their nearest mid point, using a graduated ruler that limits the risk of mistakes during the process. Execution time for the procedure was recorded using the student's phone chronometers. An unprepared reference tooth was scanned using a laboratory scanner (LabScan HD®, Bego France, Villeurbanne, France). All the prepared teeth were scanned by intraoral scanner (Trios 3®; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) in STL format. These files were blinded before analysis. STL files for each prepared tooth were then superimposed to the reference STL of the unprepared tooth, using automatic matching algorithm of the software (Geomagic®, Design X, 3D Systems). Fifteen 3D measurements for each tooth were performed using an STL comparison software (Geomagic®, Design X, 3D Systems; Figure 1e).

## 2.4 | Data collection and statistical analysis

Questionnaires were collected, and visual analog scales were converted to a numerical value on a scale of 10. The 3D STL measurements were then compiled and blinding lifted. All quantitative data

were verified for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test ($\alpha$ = .05). All data are expressed as median, interquartile range [IQR] in grades/10, seconds, or millimeters where appropriate. Data are presented as box plots (GraphPad Prism 7, GraphPad, La Jolla, CA, USA). Data were not normally distributed, and a Wilcoxon test was applied. Differences between groups were considered statistically significant for *p* < .05.

# 3 | RESULTS

## 3.1 | Learning experience

Self-reported stress, evaluated on a 10-point scale, was not significantly different between the guided bur group (median: 2.5, IQR[1–4,7]) and the rounded bur group (median: 2, IQR[1,1–5]; *p* = .29; Figure 2a). Self-evaluation of tooth preparation was also similar for the group using the guided bur (median: 7, IQR[6–7,6]) when compared with the control group (median: 7, IQR[5,6–7,2]; *p* = .99; Figure 2b). Students reported significantly lower perception of exercise difficulty when using the guided bur (median: 2.25, IQR[1,9–4]) rather than the rounded bur (median: 5, IQR[3–6]; *p* < .001; Figure 2c). Students also reported significantly greater motivation to restart the procedure in
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** Box plots representing quality of the learning environment (n = 30; \*p < .05; \*\*p < .001; ns, not significant)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** Box plots representing time for procedure performance (n = 30; \*p < .05)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 4** Box plots depicting depth obtained after incisal reduction (n = 30; \*\*p < .001)</figcaption></figure>

the guided bur group (median: 9, IQR[8–10]) compared with the control group using the rounded bur (median: 7, IQR[6–8]; p < .001; Figure 2d).

of 23% over-preparation and the rounded bur to a mean of 10% under-preparation.

## 3.2 | Behavior evaluation

Procedure duration time (s) was significantly shorter for the test group (median: 225, IQR[215–287]), compared with the control group (median: 269, IQR[234–333]; p < .05; Figure 3). Preparation depth measured at the end of the procedure was significantly greater when using guided burs (median: 2.47, IQR[2,33–2,66]), compared with rounded burs (median: 1.77, IQR[1,60–1,99]; p < .001; Figure 4). In terms of the 2-mm incisal reduction goal, the guided bur led to a mean

## 4 | DISCUSSION

For many decades, authors have suggested to start tooth preparation using depth orientation grooves performed with a rounded tapered diamond bur. Recently, an innovative procedure using guided burs was proposed. In the present study, we report that the use of this guided bur provides significant improvement in the student's learning experience (motivation and perception of difficulty) and shortens the
duration of the procedure. However, this technique also appears to
induce a reduction in accuracy during tooth preparation.

Students are regularly asked to complete a detailed evaluation of
the teaching program and teaching effectiveness using questionnaires.
Evaluation of the learning experience is less frequent although it is a
crucial element for the well-being and success of students (Brown
et al., 2011). The present study failed to find a significant difference
in student self-evaluation of tooth preparation, although significant
differences were found in terms of preparation depth. The difficulty
in self-evaluating one's work is strongly associated with lack of knowl-
edge, practical skills, and clinical experience (Tuncer, Arhun, Yamanel,
Çelik, & Dayangaç, 2015). Herein, participants were second-year
students with a low level of knowledge or experience in tooth prepara-
tion. To increase accuracy in self-evaluation of dental preparations,
various authors have proposed the use of digital tools. However, there
is no clear consensus yet as to whether or not these truly improve the
self-assessment capacities of students (Esser et al., 2006; Gratton,
Kwon, Blanchette, & Aquilino, 2016). Moreover, some authors have
also suggested that self-assessment can be linked to stress levels (Pope,
2005). Stress evaluation is difficult to investigate in education due to
inter-individual variability in levels of stress, often linked to the grading
systems (Alzahem, Van Der Molen, Alaujan, Schmidt, & Zamakhshary,
2011; Elani et al., 2014; Pöhlmann, Jonas, Ruf, & Harzer, 2005; Shah,
Hasan, Malik, & Sreeramareddy, 2010; Stormon et al., 2018). In the
present study, tooth preparation performance did not count towards
the end of year grades. This likely explains the low levels of stress per-
ceived by students in both groups prior to performing the procedure.

The use of guided burs, however, significantly reduced the per-
ceived difficulty in performing the procedure and increased the stu-
dents' motivation to restart the procedure. These results are in line
with a previous study reporting that when a task difficulty increases,
student motivation decreases (Lynch, Patten, & Hennessy, 2013).
Interestingly, it has also been shown that the introduction of innova-
tive teaching strategies are major components for increasing student
motivation and performance (Wery & Thomson, 2013).

In a preclinical situation, behavior and performance are the main
criteria to evaluate the trainees' ability to use their knowledge or skills
in the workplace. The time reduction in procedure performance
induced by the use of guided burs is of particular interest as studies
have highlighted the need to find strategies to increase time and cost
efficiency in the teaching environment (Serdyukov, 2017). Further-
more, the use of digital tools may also reduce the time needed for eval-
uation, while providing an objective and standardized method (Callan,
Palladino, Furness, Bundy, & Ange, 2014; Esser et al., 2006; Gratton
et al., 2016; Güth et al., 2013; Marghalani, 2016). However, assessment
by teaching staff and the use of personal feedback remain essential for
students to improve (Chambers & Labarre, 2014; Davis et al., 2006).

The results of this study also showed that the guided bur leads to an
over-preparation and the rounded bur to an under-preparation, with
the latter being closer to the goal given. Thus, the rounded bur could
be considered more precise. This is important as it impacts the clinical
prognostic for restoration. Indeed, under-preparation limits the space
needed for restoration material, whereas over-preparation likely

weakening the remaining tooth structure. However, the impact of the
wheel bur on the final reduction depth was not anticipated in this study,
and intermediate measurement of groove reduction could have been
performed. The choice of the wheel bur used for connecting the
grooves therefore needs to be taken into account. Further studies are
thus needed to improve and optimize bur selection for tooth reduction
procedures. Overall, this innovative guided bur may be of interest in
preclinical but also in clinical practice (Schlichting, Maia, Baratieri, &
Magne, 2011), especially for posterior teeth preparation, as grooves
are more complicated to obtain and depth harder to estimate (Fages
et al., 2017; Fages & Bennasar, 2013; Rosella et al., 2015). Importantly,
it has been reported that including guided burs during tooth prepara-
tion renders the procedure quick and simple (Fages et al., 2017).

5 | CONCLUSION

The guided bur is of interest as it provides significant improvement in
the learning experience and reduces duration of procedure perfor-
mance by second-year students. This technique was however linked
to a reduction in accuracy that may be related to the type of bur cho-
sen. Further investigation is thus required to optimize bur selection for
preclinical training in prosthetic dentistry.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Philip Robinson and Verena Landel (DRCI, Hospices
Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France) for help in manuscript preparation.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors report no conflict of interest.

ORCID

Michel Fages ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9719-9575

Pascale Corne ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6581-3745

Maxime Ducret ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5462-6258

REFERENCES

Alzahem, A. M., Van Der Molen, H. T., Alaujan, A. H., Schmidt, H. G., & Zamakhshary, M. H. (2011). Stress amongst dental students: A systematic review. *European Journal of Dental Education, 15*(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2010.00640.x

Bates, R. A. (2004). A critical analysis of evaluation practice: The Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. *Evaluation and Program Planning*, *27*, 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011

Brown, T., Williams, B., & Lynch, M. (2011). The Australian DREEM: Evalu-
ating student perceptions of academic learning environments within
eight health science courses. *International Journal of Medical Education*,
*2*, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4e66.1b37

Callan, R. S., Palladino, C. L., Furness, A. R., Bundy, E. L., & Ange, B. L. (2014). Effectiveness and feasibility of utilizing E4D technology as a teaching tool in a preclinical dental education environment. *Journal of Dental Education, 78*(10), 1416–1423.

Chambers, D. W., & Labarre, E. E. (2014). Why professional judgment is better than objective description in dental faculty evaluations of student performance. *Journal of Dental Education, 78*(5), 681–693.
Christensen, G. J. (2007). Observations: Frequently encountered errors in tooth preparations for crowns. *Journal of the American Dental Association* (1939), 138(10), 1373-1375. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0055

Clancy, J. M. S., Lindquist, T. J., Palik, J. F., & Johnson, L. A. (2002). A comparison of student performance in a simulation clinic and a traditional laboratory environment: Three-year results. *Journal of Dental Education*, 66(12), 1331-1337.

Davis, D. A., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Van Harrison, R., Thorpe, K. E., & Perrier, L. (2006). Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: A systematic review. *Journal of the American Medical Association*, 296(9), 1094-1102. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.9.1094

Elani, H. W., Allison, P. J., Kumar, R. A., Mancini, L., Lambrou, A., & Bedos, C. (2014). A systematic review of stress in dental students. *Journal of Dental Education*, 78(2), 226-242.

Esser, C., Kerschbaum, T., Winkelmann, V., Krage, T., & Faber, F. J. (2006). A comparison of the visual and technical assessment of preparations made by dental students. *European Journal of Dental Education*, 10(3), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2006.00408.x

Fages, M., & Bennasar, B. (2013). The endocrown: A different type of all-ceramic reconstruction for molars. *Journal of the Canadian Dental Association*, 79, d140.

Fages, M., Bennasar, B., & Raynal, J. (2017). Minimally invasive all-ceramic preparation for the occlusal face: The "V preparation". *The Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry*, 38(2), e5-e8.

Gratton, D. G., Kwon, S. R., Blanchette, D., & Aquilino, S. A. (2016). Impact of digital tooth preparation evaluation technology on preclinical dental students technical and self-evaluation skills. *Journal of Dental Education*, 80(1), 91-99.

Güth, J. F., Wallbach, J., Stimmelmayr, M., Gernet, W., Beuer, F., & Edelhoff, D. (2013). Computer-aided evaluation of preparations for CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. *Clinical Oral Investigations*, 17(5), 1389-1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0812-3

Habib, S. R. (2018). Rubric system for evaluation of crown preparation performed by dental students. *European Journal of Dental Education*, 22(3), 1-8.

Hutchinson, L. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching: Educational environment. *BMJ*, 326(7393), 810-812. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7393.810

Lynch, R., Patten, J. V., & Hennessy, J. (2013). The impact of task difficulty and performance scores on student engagement and progression. *Educational Research*, 55(3), 291-303.

Marghalani, T. Y. (2016). Frequency of undercuts and favorable path of insertion in abutments prepared for fixed dental prostheses by preclinical dental students. *The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry*, 116(4), 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.03.014

Mays, K. A., & Branch-Mays, G. L. (2016). A systematic review of the use of self-assessment in preclinical and clinical dental education. *Journal of Dental Education*, 80(8), 902-913.

Pöhlmann, K., Jonas, I., Ruf, S., & Harzer, W. (2005). Stress, burnout and health in the clinical period of dental education. *European Journal of Dental Education*, 8, 78-84.

Pope, N. K. L. (2005). The impact of stress in self- and peer assessment. *Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education*, 30(1), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042003243896

Preston, J. D. (1977). Rational approach to tooth preparation for ceramometal restorations. *Dental Clinics of North America*, 21(4), 683-698.

Rosella, D., Rosella, G., Brauner, E., Papi, P., Piccoli, L., & Pompa, G. (2015). A tooth preparation technique in fixed prosthodontics for students and neophyte dentists. *Annali di Stomatologia*, 6(3-4), 104-109.

Sadid-Zadeh, R., & Feigenbaum, D. (2018). Development of an assessment strategy in preclinical fixed prosthodontics course using virtual assessment software—Part 1. *Clinical and Experimental Dental Research*, 4(3), 86-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.109

Schlichting, L. H., Maia, H. P., Baratieri, L. N., & Magne, P. (2011). Novel-design ultra-thin CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic occlusal veneers for the treatment of severe dental erosion. *The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry*, 105(4), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60035-8

Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn't, and what to do about it? *Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning*, 10(10), 4-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007

Shah, M., Hasan, S., Malik, S., & Sreeramareddy, C. T. (2010). Perceived stress, sources and severity of stress among medical undergraduates in a Pakistani medical school. *BMC Medical Education*, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-2

Stormon, N., Ford, P. J., & Eley, D. S. (2018). DREEM-ing of dentistry: Students' perception of the academic learning environment in Australia. *European Journal of Dental Education*, 23, 1-7.

Syed, S., Al-Moaleem, M. M., & Shariff, M. (2016). The quality assessment of teeth prepared by fresh graduates for ceramo-metal full coverage crowns. *The Saudi Journal for Dental Research*, 7(1), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjdr.2015.01.003

Tiu, J., Cheng, E., Hung, T., Yu, C., Lin, T., Schwass, D., & al-Amleh, B. (2016). Assessment software as an educational tool. *Journal of Dental Education*, 80(8), 1004-1011.

Tuncer, D., Arhun, N., Yamanel, K., Çelik, Ç., & Dayangaç, B. (2015). Dental students' ability to assess their performance in a preclinical restorative course: Comparison of students' and faculty members' assessments. *Journal of Dental Education*, 79(6), 658-664.

Wery, J., & Thomson, M. M. (2013). Motivational strategies to enhance effective learning in teaching struggling students. *Support for Learning*, 28(3), 103-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12027

Winning, T., Malhotra, N., & Masters, R. S. W. (2018). Investigating an errorless learning approach for developing dental operative technique skills: A pilot study. *European Journal of Dental Education*, 22(4), 1-9.

**How to cite this article:** Yee S, Richert R, Viguie G, et al. Evaluation of the use of a guided bur during preclinical teaching of tooth preparation: A pilot study. *Clin Exp Dent Res.* 2019;5: 588-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.184