AIM To compare the educational benefits and user friendliness of two anonymized endodontic case difficulty assessment (CDA) methods. METHODOLOGY A cohort (n = 206) of fourth-year undergraduate dental students were recruited from four different Dental Schools and divided randomly into two groups (Group A and B). The participants assessed six test endodontic cases using anonymized versions of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE) case difficulty assessment form (AAE Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment Form and Guidelines, 2006) and EndoApp, a web-based CDA tool. Group A (n = 107) used the AAE form for assessment of the first three cases, followed by EndoApp for the latter. Group B (n = 99) used EndoApp for the initial three cases and switched to the AAE form for the remainder. Data were collected online and analysed to assess participants' knowledge reinforcement and agreement with the recommendation generated. Statistical analysis was performed using the two-way mixed model anova, Cohen's Kappa (κ) and independent t-tests, with the levels of significance set at P < 0.05. Additionally, participants' feedback and preference for CDA was also gathered. RESULTS There was a significant increase in knowledge reinforcement for the AAE form and EndoApp (P = 0.001) after assessment of the first three test cases. However, this increase was not significant (P = 0.842) between the CDA methods. Overall, the AAE form and EndoApp had slight (κ = 0.176, P < 0.001) and substantial (κ = 0.668, P < 0.001) levels of agreement, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Participants' feedback on user friendliness favoured EndoApp for all parameters measured. EndoApp was preferred by 65% of the cohort, whereas only 11% chose the AAE form for CDA. CONCLUSIONS Both the AAE form and EndoApp were beneficial for dental education. EndoApp was reliable in helping with decisions to treat or refer, and combined with user friendliness, it was the preferred choice for CDA.

中文翻译：

---

牙科本科生队列中两种案例难度评估方法的比较-多中心研究。

目的比较两种匿名牙髓病病例难度评估（CDA）方法的教育收益和用户友好度。方法：从四所不同的牙科学校招募了队列研究（n = 206）的四年级本科牙科学生，并随机分为两组（A组和B组）。参与者使用匿名版本的美国牙髓病协会（AAE）病例难度评估表（AAE牙髓病病例难度评估表和指南，2006）和基于Web的CDA工具EndoApp评估了6例牙髓病测试病例。A组（n = 107）使用AAE表格评估前三个案例，随后是EndoApp。B组（n = 99）在最初的三种情况下使用EndoApp，而在其余情况下使用AAE形式。在线收集数据并进行分析，以评估参与者的知识强化程度并与所产生的建议达成一致。使用双向混合模型方差分析，Cohen's Kappa（κ）和独立t检验进行统计分析，显着性水平设置为P <0.05。此外，还收集了参与者对CDA的反馈和偏爱。结果在评估了前三个测试用例之后，AAE表格和EndoApp的知识强化显着增加（P = 0.001）。但是，在CDA方法之间，这种增加并不显着（P = 0.842）。总体而言，AAE形式和EndoApp分别具有轻微的（κ= 0.176，P <0.001）和实质性的（κ= 0.668，P <0.001）同意水平，差异具有统计学意义（P <0.001）。参与者对用户友好性的反馈对EndoApp的所有测量参数都非常满意。在65％的人群中，EndoApp是首选，而只有11％的人选择CDA的AAE形式。结论AAE表格和EndoApp均对牙科教育有益。EndoApp可靠地帮助您做出治疗或推荐的决策，并且结合用户友好性，它是CDA的首选。