Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
MPEs and CEs for the Fixed Prosthodontics courses
 Points system was not applied for the 5th year as decided by the
division.
 Evaluation criteria were added in the forms to ease the
evaluation process.
 Grades will be calculated by adding the evaluation points from
each step divided by the total maximum number multiplied
by100 (percentage).
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
OMR 434-Preclinical fixed prosthodontics MPEs (4th year):
1. Full
metal
veneer
crown
preparation:
Mandibular 1st or 2nd molar.
Maxillary 1st or 2nd molar.
2. Metal-ceramic posterior crown
preparation:
Mandibular premolar.
Maxillary premolar.
Mandibular 1st molar.
Maxillary 1st molar.
3. Metal-ceramic anterior crown
preparation:
Maxillary central incisor
4. Anterior all-ceramic crown
preparation:
Maxillary central incisor
5. Custom tray on study model
6. Provisional restoration
7. Resin pattern post and core
8. Wax pattern
Numbers
required
Due
week
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
MPE forms
Full metal crown preparation
2
2
Throughout the year
MPE
Posterior Metal-ceramic
preparation
Anterior Metal-ceramic
preparation
Anterior All-ceramic
preparation
Custom Tray
Provisional Restorations
Custom Post and Core
Wax pattern
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
OMR 434-Preclinical fixed prosthodontics CEs (4th year):
CE*
1. Full metal veneer
preparation
Due week
crown
2. Posterior Metal-ceramic crown
preparation
3. Special tray
4. Provisional Restorations
5. Wax pattern
*CE forms are similar to MPE forms
13 -14 (1st and 2nd semesters)
13 -14 (1st and 2nd semesters)
13 -14 (1st semesters)
13 -14 (1st semesters)
13 -14 (2nd semesters)
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
OMR 534-Clinical fixed prosthodontics MPEs (5th year):
1. Examination, Diagnosis and
Treatment planning
2. Custom Post and Core +
Crown*
3. Pre-fabricated Post and
Core + Crown*
4. 3-unit Fixed Dental Prosthesis
(FDP)*
5. Provisional restoration for 3unit FDP (on simulator)
6. Laminate veneer (on
simulator)
7. Resin-bonded FDP (on
simulator)
Numbers
required
Due
week
3
1
1
1
1
Throughout the year
MPE
1
1
MPE forms
Under
development
Custom Post
and Core
Pre-fabricated
Post and Core
See below
Provisional
Restorations
Laminate
Veneer
Resin Bonded
FDP
* MPE forms are available for each step as following:









Cast mounting
Custom Tray
Teeth preparation (for FDP, each preparation will be assessed individually
and then for common path of insertion)
o Full metal crown preparation
o Posterior metal-ceramic preparation
o Anterior metal-ceramic preparation
o Anterior all-ceramic preparation
Provisional Restorations
Final impression
Metal try-in
Porcelain try-in
Trial cementation
Final cementation
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
OMR 534-Clinical fixed prosthodontics CEs (5th year):
CE*
1. Provisional restoration for 3-unit
FDP (on simulator)
2. Examination, Diagnosis and
treatment planning for a case
3. Crown preparation on patient
4. Provisional restoration for a
crown on patient
5. Laminate veneer (on simulator)
6. Resin-bonded FDP (on
simulator)
*CE forms are similar to MPE forms
Numbers
required
Due week
1
13 -14 (1st semesters)
1
8-9 (2nd semesters)
1
8-9 (2nd semesters)
1
8-9 (2nd semesters)
1
13 -14 (2nd semesters)
1
13 -14 (2nd semesters)
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
CCC 600 - Comprehensive Care Clinic (6th year)
Students are required to collect 30 points from the following MPEs
MPE
Points
1. Crown
5
2. Laminate veneer
4
3. Cast post and core*
4
4. Prefabricated post and core*
3
5. Resin-bonded FDP
5
6. 3-unit FDP**
10
* Must be covered by crown.
** Mandatory
CEs
Numbers
required
Due week
2
8-9 (2nd semesters)
2. Final impression
1-2*
8-9 (2nd semesters)
3. Delivery of the final restoration
and follow-up
1-2*
13 -14 (1st semesters)
CE*
1. Abutment preparation on
patient (preferably for FDP)
* Depending on the clinical scenario, if both preparations could be taken by one
or two separate impressions.
Casts Mounting’s Evaluation Criteria
CRITERIA
Area of Grading
Proficient (2)

Accuracy



Recording all the soft and hard tissue
accurately.
Casts free of voids or air bubbles
Competent (1)


Base should be of adequate height
Base trimmed properly
Some of the details are missing in nonsignificant areas
Few voids and/or air bubbles
________
Incompetent (0)
 Some of the details are missing in
significant areas
 Significant amount of voids and/or air
bubbles
 Base is very thin or very thick.
 Base is not trimmed properly
Base
Articulator Setting
Maxillary Cast
Mounting
Mandibular Casts
Mounting



Condylar inclination= 30°
Bennett angle =15°,
Incisal pin is on zero when it is touching
the incisal table*.
 The condylar element should be in the
most posterior position*.
 Face bow attached to the articulator
properly*
 Maxillary cast correctly seated on
bitefork registration*
 Mounting plaster should engage undercuts
in the base of the cast and the mounting
plate



Neatness









________
Teeth are fully seated in interocclusal
record*.
Mandibular casts is mounted in the
proper centric position*.
Articulator is clean without remnants of
plaster attached to the articulator
members.
Mounting plaster is neat and smooth.
One or both condylar setting were not set
properly.
Incisal pin is on zero when it is touching
the incisal table*.
The condylar element should be in the
most posterior position*.
________



Articulator is clean with remnants of plaster
attached to the articulator members.


Mounting plaster is slightly rough.

Incisal pin is not on zero when it is
touching the incisal table*.
The condylar element is not in the most
posterior position*.
Face bow is not attached to the
articulator properly*
Maxillary cast is not correctly seated on
bitefork registration*
Mounting plaster is not engaging undercuts
in the base of the cast and the mounting
plate
Teeth are not fully seated in
interocclusal record*, and/or
Mandibular casts is not mounted in the
proper centric position*.
Articulator is not clean with significant
amount of remnants of plaster attached to
the articulator members.
Mounting plaster is significantly rough
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Casts Mounting
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0

Accuracy

Recording all the soft and hard
tissue accurately.
Casts free of voids or air bubbles
Base


Base should be of adequate height
Base trimmed properly




Condylar Inclination= 300
Lateral =150,
Incisal= 00
The condylar element should be
in the most posterior position*.
Articulator Setting

Maxillary Cast
Mounting
Face Bow Attached to Articulator
Properly*
 Maxillary cast correctly seated
on bitefork registration*
 Mounting plaster should engage
undercuts in the base of the cast
and the mounting plate
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback

Mandibular Casts
Mounting


Incisal Guide Pin
Teeth are fully seated in
interocclusal record
Mandibular Casts Mounted in
Maximum Intercuspation
Position*
Incisal Guide Pin in Contact with
Anterior Table and flush with
articulator’s upper compartment
Neatness
Total
Note:
-
Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form # 4
Custom Tray's Evaluation Criteria
CRITERIA
Area of Grading
Proficient (2)
Competent (1)
Incompetent (0)
1. Spacing

Even space along the tray that permits an
even impression thickness of 2-3 mm


Uneven space in some areas along the tray
Improper thickness (less than 2 mm)

No space
2. Stoppers
and Stability

3 stoppers:
- Tripodal arrangement
- On non-centric cusps of teeth not to
be prepared
- 2x2 mm dimensions
Stable on the cast

Only 2 stoppers with proper size and
location or 3 stoppers but with improper
size, distribution or location.
Stable on the cast


Less than 2 stoppers
Lack of stability.
Extended about 5 mm cervical to the
gingival margins of the teeth.
Shaped properly to allow for frenum
attachments
Smooth with no sharp edges along all the
tray margin
Have consistent thickness of 2-3 mm

Peripheries minimally over/under extended
along few areas of the margins of the teeth
(+/- 2mm)
Shaped properly for frenum attachments
Slightly rough with few localized areas of
sharp edges.
Uneven thickness along parts of the tray.

Handle is at right angle on the occlusal
plane and doesn’t interfere with the lip.
Even thickness along the handle and at the
connection with the tray

Handle is not at right angle with the
occlusal plane but doesn’t interfere with the
lip.
Uneven thickness along handle and bulky
connection with the tray.



Peripheries under or over extended (more
than 7 mm or less than 3mm from the
gingival margins of the teeth)
Unrelieved at frenum attachments
Rough and irregular surfaces with multiple
areas of sharp edges
Uneven thickness and perforation in some
places.
No handle.
Handle interferes with the lip.
Very thick or very thin handle.

3. Peripheral
Extension


4. Smoothness
& Thickness

5. Handle











Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Custom Tray
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
Spacing

Even space along the tray that
permits an even impression
thickness of 2-3 mm
Stoppers and
Stability

Three stoppers*:
- Tripodal arrangement
- On non centric cusps of teeth
not to be prepared
- 2x2 mm dimensions
Stable on the cast

Peripheral
Extension

Smoothness
& Thickness

Smooth with no sharp edges along
all the tray

Rigid and have consistent
thickness of 2-3 mm*

Extended about 5 mm cervical to
the gingival margins
Shaped properly to allow for
frenum attachments
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
Handle


Handle is at right angle on the
occlusal plane
Even thickness along handle and
connection with the tray
Total
Note:
-
Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Form # 1
All Metal Preparation's Evaluation Criteria
Area of Grading
PROCEDURE
1. OCCLUSAL
REDUCTION
CRITERIA
Proficient (2)

3.
4.
AXIAL
SURFACE
REDUCTION
(Baccul &
Lingual)
PROXIMAL
REDUCTION
FINSIH LINE
Incompetent (0)

Inadequate reduction, alterations are possible
to obtain desired reduction, or slight overreduction (up to 0.5 mm more than ideal)

Inadequate reduction (tooth still in contact
or no clearance) or over reduced to point of
exposure

Follow contour but not uniform

Flat surface, or not following original
contour
Adequate reduction buccally and lingual 1 mm

Under-reduction (< 1 mm)


Angle of convergence (>10° or <20°)




Cervical 1/3 of facial and lingual surface
converges occ. (6-10°)
Buccal surface demonstrates 2 planes
Rounded line angles
No undercuts*
Lack of reduction or extensive to the point
of exposure
Converging more than 20°



One plane (minimally converging)
Sharp line angle
No undercuts

One plane (severely converging)

Presence of undercuts.

Adequate wall convergence (6-100)

Angle of convergence (>100 or <200)





Proximal contact opened with adjacent teeth
by 0.5 mm
Minimal scratches on adjacent tooth
No undercuts



Proximal contact opened with adjacent teeth by
0.5 mm*
No damage to adjacent teeth
No undercuts*
Excessive convergence to point of exposure
or converging more than 20°
Proximal contact not opened.


Extensive damage to adjacent teeth
Presence of undercuts.

Type: Chamfer (buccal & lingual)

Type: Chamfer (buccal & lingual)

Wrong design (type)

2.
Competent (1)
Adequate Reduction Clearance*
a) Functional cusps bevel
1.5 mm
b) Non-functional cusps
1.0 mm
c) Central Groove
1.0 mm
Uniform and retains original contour




Width: Chamfer (0.4-0.7 mm)


Smooth and continuous finish line.*


Finish line position: 0.5 mm supragingivally (for
preclinical)


Finish line position is appropriate for the case
(for clinical cases).

Detectable narrow finish line or slightly wide
(up to 1mm)
Slight irregularity & roughness in the finish
line
Finish line position: Equigingival, up to 1mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)

Finish line position is appropriate for the
case (for clinical cases).



Too wide (>1mm) or undetectable finish
line.
Significant irregularity and roughness.
Finish line position: more than 1mm
supragingivally or subgingival (for
preclinical)
Finish line position is not appropriate for
the case (for clinical cases).
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
All Metal Crown Preparation
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0

Occlusal Reduction


Buccal & Lingual
Reduction*






Proximal Reduction



Adequate Reduction Clearance*
a. Functional cusps bevel
1.5 mm
b. Non-functional cusps
1 mm
c. Central Groove
1mm
Uniform and retains original contour
Adequate reduction buccally and
lingual 1 mm
Cervical 1/3 of facial and lingual
surface converges occ. (6-10°)
Buccal surface demonstrates 2 planes
Rounded line angles
No undercuts*
Adequate wall convergence (6-100)
Proximal contact opened with adjacent
teeth by 0.5 mm*
No damage to adjacent teeth
No undercuts*
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback



Finish Line

Type: Chamfer (buccal & lingual)
Width: Chamfer (0.4-0.7 mm)
Smooth and continuous finish line
Finish line position: 0.5 mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)
Finish line position is appropriate for
the case (for clinical cases).
Total
Note:
-
Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI-STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Additionally, the procedure will not be considered an MPE if you perform one of the following:
1. Unjustifiable over reduction to a point of exposure
2. Damage to adjacent tooth involving the dentin
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form # 2a
Posterior Metal – Ceramic Preparation's Evaluation Criteria
Area of Grading
PROCEDURE
1. OCCLUSAL
REDUCTION
Proficient (2)


2. AXIAL
SURFACE
REDUCTION
(Buccal &
Lingual)
CRITERIA
Competent (1)





Adequate Reduction Clearance*
a) Functional cusps bevel
1.5-1.7 mm
b) Non-functional cusps
1.3-1.7 mm for maxillary
0.8-1.2 mm for mandibular
c) Central Groove
1.5 mm
Uniform and retains original contour
Adequate reduction buccally 1.5 mm,
lingually 1 mm
Cervical 1/3 of buccal and lingual surfaces
converges occ. (6 - 10°)
Buccal surface demonstrates 2 planes
Rounded line angles
No undercuts*

Inadequate reduction, alterations are possible to
obtain desired reduction, or slight over-reduction
(up to 0.5 mm more than ideal).

Incompetent (0)


Inadequate reduction (tooth still in contact or
no clearance) or
Over reduced to point of exposure

Flat surface, or not following original contour


Follow contour but not uniform
Inadequate reduction (less than 1 mm)


Angle of convergence (>10° or <20°)

Lack of reduction or extensive to the point of
exposure
Converging more than 20°



One plane (minimally converging)
Sharp line angle
No undercuts

One plane (severely converging)

Presence of undercuts
3. PROXIMAL
REDUCTION





4. FINISH LINE





Adequate wall convergence (6-100)
Proximal contact opened with adjacent teeth
by 0.5 mm*
No damage to adjacent teeth
No undercuts*
Well-defined wings like structure (mesially:
pass proximal contact - distally: buccal to
proximal contact)
Type: Chamfer (lingual)
Rounded shoulder (buccally)
Width: Chamfer (0.4-0.7 mm)
Rounded shoulder (1-1.2 mm)
Smooth and continuous finish line.*
Finish line position: 0.5 mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)
Finish line position is appropriate for the
case (for clinical cases).










Angle of convergence (>100 or <200)
Proximal contact opened with adjacent teeth by
0.5 mm
Minimal scratches on adjacent tooth
No undercuts
Well-defined improperly positioned wings like
structure.


Excessive convergence to point of exposure
Proximal contact not opened.



Extensive damage to adjacent
Presence of undercuts
Ill-defined wings like structure
Type: Chamfer (lingual)
Rounded shoulder (buccally)
Detectable narrow finish line or slightly wide (up
to 1mm lingually or 1.5 buccally)
Slight irregularity & roughness in the finish line
Finish line position: Equigingival or up to 1mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)
Finish line position is appropriate for the case (for
clinical cases).

Wrong design (type)

Too wide (>1.5mm) or undetectable finish line.


Significant irregularity and roughness.
Finish line position: more than 1mm
supragingivally or subgingival (for preclinical)
Finish line position is not appropriate for the case
(for clinical cases).

Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Posterior Metal – Ceramic Crown Preparation
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0

Occlusal
Reduction


Buccal & Lingual
Reduction




Proximal
Reduction


Adequate Reduction Clearance*
a. Functional cusps bevel
1.5-1.7 mm
b. Non-functional cusps
1.3-1.7 mm for maxillary
0.8-1.2 mm for mandibular
c. Central Groove
1.5 mm
Uniform and retains original
contour
Adequate reduction buccally 1.5
mm, lingually 1 mm
Cervical 1/3 of buccal and lingual
surfaces converges occ. (6 - 10°)
Buccal surface demonstrates 2
planes
Rounded line angles
No undercuts*
Adequate wall convergence (6100)
Proximal contact opened with
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback




Finish Line



adjacent teeth by 0.5 mm*
No damage to adjacent teeth
No undercuts*
Well-defined wings like
structure (mesially: pass
proximal contact - distally:
buccal to proximal contact)
Type: Chamfer (lingual)
Rounded shoulder
(buccally)
Width: Chamfer (0.4-0.7 mm)
Rounded shoulder (1-1.2
mm)
Smooth and continuous finish
line.*
Finish line position: 0.5 mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)
Finish line position is appropriate
for the case (for clinical cases).
Total
Note:
-
Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
The procedure will not be considered an MPE if you perform on of the following:
1. Unjustifiable over reduction to a point of exposure
2. Damage to adjacent tooth involving the dentin
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form # 2b
Anterior Metal – Ceramic Preparation's Evaluation Criteria
Area of Grading
PROCEDURE
1. Incisal
Reduction
2. Facial & Lingual
Reduction
CRITERIA
Competent (1)
Proficient (2)

Adequate Incisal Clearance = 2mm*



Rounded line angles.
Uniform and parallel with existing incisal
edge



Adequate reduction: facially (1.2-1.5 mm),
lingually (1 mm)
Cervical 1/3 of facial surface converges
incisally (6 - 10°)
Facial surface demonstrates 2 planes
Rounded line angles
Concave cingulum reduction allows 1mm
clearance
No undercuts*











Incompetent (0)
Inadequate reduction, alterations are possible to
obtain desired reduction, or slight overreduction (up to 0.5 mm more than ideal)
Sharp line angles.
Uniform and parallel with existing incisal edge

Inadequate reduction (tooth still in contact
or no clearance) or over reduced to point of
exposure

Not parallel with existing incisal edge
Inadequate reduction (less than 1 mm) or slight
over-reduction (up to 0.5 mm more than ideal).
Angle of convergence (>10° or <20°)


Lack of reduction or extensive reduction to
the point of exposure
Converging more than 20°
One plane (minimally converging)
Sharp line angle
Inadequate clearance at the cingulum (less than
1mm)
No undercuts

One plane (severely converging)

Over reduction at the cingulum.

Presence of undercuts
3. Proximal
Reduction





4. Finish Line





Adequate wall convergence (6-100)
Proximal contact opened with adjacent teeth
by 0.5 mm*
No damage to adjacent teeth
No undercuts *
Wings like structure (pass proximal contact –
mesially and distally).


Type: Chamfer (lingual)
Rounded shoulder (facially)
Width: Chamfer (0.4-0.7 mm)
Rounded shoulder (1-1.2 mm)
Smooth and continuous finish line (following
the gingival contour)*
Finish line position: 0.5 mm supragingivally
(for preclinical)
Finish line position is appropriate for the
case (for clinical cases).








Angle of convergence (>100 or <200)
Proximal contact opened with adjacent teeth by
0.5 mm
Minimal scratches on adjacent tooth
No undercuts
Well-defined improperly positioned wings like
structure.


Excessive convergence to point of exposure
Proximal contact not opened.



Extensive damage to adjacent
Presence of undercuts
Ill-defined wings like structure.
Type: Chamfer (lingual)
Rounded shoulder (facially)
Detectable narrow finish line or slightly wide
(up to 1mm lingually or 1.5mm facially)
Slight irregularity & roughness in the finish
line
Finish line position: Equigingival, up to 1mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)
Finish line position is appropriate for the case
(for clinical cases).

Wrong design (type)

Too wide (>1.5mm) or undetectable finish
line.
Significant irregularity and roughness.



Finish line position: more than 1mm
supragingivally or subgingival (for
preclinical)
Finish line position is not appropriate for the
case (for clinical cases).
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Anterior Metal – Ceramic Crown Preparation
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and
Evaluation Criteria
procedures
Incisal
Reduction
Facial &
Lingual
Reduction
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0



Adequate Incisal Clearance = 2mm*
Rounded line angles.
Uniform and parallel with existing incisal edge

Adequate reduction: facially (1.2-1.5 mm),
lingually (1 mm)
Cervical 1/3 of facial surface converges
incisally (6 - 10°)
Facial surface demonstrates 2 planes
Rounded line angles
Concave cingulum reduction allows 1mm
clearance
No undercuts*







Proximal
Reduction
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient


Adequate wall convergence (6-100)
Proximal contact opened with adjacent teeth by
0.5 mm*
No damage to adjacent teeth
No undercuts *
Wings like structure (pass proximal
contact – mesially and distally).
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback

Type: Chamfer (lingual)
Rounded shoulder (facially)
Width: Chamfer (0.4-0.7 mm)
Rounded shoulder (1-1.2 mm)
Smooth and continuous finish line (following
the gingival contour)*
Finish line position: 0.5 mm supragingivally
(for preclinical)
Finish line position is appropriate for the case
(for clinical cases).

Finish Line



Total
Note:
-
Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
The procedure will not be considered an MPE if you perform on of the following:
1. Unjustifiable over reduction to a point of exposure
2. Damage to adjacent tooth involving the dentin
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form # 3
Anterior All-Ceramic Preparation's Evaluation Criteria
Area of Grading
PROCEDURE

1. Incisal
Reduction



2. Facial &
Lingual

Reduction




3. Proximal 

Reduction


CRITERIA
Competent (1)
Proficient (2)
Adequate Incisal Clearance = 1.5-2mm*

Rounded line angles.
Uniform and parallel with existing incisal
edge


Adequate reduction: facially (1.2-1.5 mm),
lingually (1 mm)
Cervical 1/3 of facial surface converges
incisally (6 - 10°)
Facial surface demonstrates 2 planes
Rounded line angles
Concave cingulum reduction allows 1mm
clearance
No undercuts*

Adequate wall convergence (6-100)
Proximal contact opened with adjacent teeth
by 0.5 mm*
No damage to adjacent teeth
No undercuts*









Incompetent (0)
Inadequate reduction, alterations are possible to
obtain desired reduction, or slight over-reduction
(up to 0.5 mm more than ideal)
Sharp line angles.
Uniform and parallel with existing incisal edge

Inadequate reduction (tooth still in contact
or no clearance) or over reduced to point of
exposure

Not parallel with existing incisal edge
Inadequate reduction (less than 1 mm) or slight
over-reduction (up to 0.5 mm more than ideal).
Angle of convergence (>10° or <20°)


Lack of reduction or extensive reduction to
the point of exposure
Converging more than 20°
One plane (minimally converging)
Sharp line angle
Inadequate clearance at the cingulum (less than
1mm)
No undercuts

One plane (severely converging)

Over reduction at the cingulum.

Presence of undercuts
Angle of convergence (>100 or <200)
Proximal contact opened with adjacent teeth by
0.5 mm
Minimal scratches on adjacent tooth
No undercuts


Excessive convergence to point of exposure
Proximal contact not opened.


Extensive damage to adjacent
Presence of undercuts
4. Finish
Line


Type: Rounded shoulder
Width: 1-1.2 mm



Smooth and continuous finish line (following
the gingival contour)*
Finish line position: 0.5 mm supragingivally
(for preclinical)

Finish line position is appropriate for the case
(for clinical cases).


Type: Rounded shoulder
Detectable narrow finish line or slightly wide (up
to 1.5mm)
Slight irregularity & roughness in the finish line



Finish line position: Equigingival, up to 1mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)


Finish line position is appropriate for the case (for
clinical cases).


Wrong design (type)
Too wide (>1.5mm) or undetectable finish
line.
Significant irregularity and roughness.
Finish line position: more than 1mm
supragingivally or subgingival (for
preclinical)
Finish line position is not appropriate for the
case (for clinical cases).
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Anterior All-Ceramic Crown Preparation
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
Incisal Reduction



Facial & Lingual
Reduction






Proximal
Reduction



Adequate Incisal Clearance = 1.52mm*
Rounded line angles.
Uniform and parallel with existing
incisal edge
Adequate reduction: facially (1.21.5 mm), lingually (1 mm)
Cervical 1/3 of facial surface
converges incisally (6 - 10°)
Facial surface demonstrates 2
planes
Rounded line angles
Concave
cingulum
reduction
allows 1mm clearance
No undercuts*
Adequate wall convergence (6100)
Proximal contact opened with
adjacent teeth by 0.5 mm*
No damage to adjacent teeth
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
Finish Line

No undercuts*



Type: Rounded shoulder
Width: 1-1.2 mm
Smooth and continuous finish line
(following the gingival contour)*
Finish line position: 0.5 mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)
Finish line position is appropriate
for the case (for clinical cases).


Total
Note:
-
Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
The procedure will not be considered an MPE if you perform on of the following:
1. Unjustifiable over reduction to a point of exposure
2. Damage to adjacent tooth involving the dentin
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form #
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Porcelain Laminate Veneer’s Evaluation Criteria
Area of Grading
PROCEDURE
1. INCISAL
REDUCTION
(when
indicated)
2. FACIAL
REDUCTION
3. PROXIMAL
REDUCTION
CRITERIA
Competent (1)
Proficient (2)

Adequate Incisal Clearance = 1.5-2mm*

Inadequate reduction, alterations are possible
to obtain desired reduction, or slight overreduction (up to 0.5 mm more than ideal)


Rounded line angles.
Uniform and parallel with existing incisal
edge

Uniform and parallel with existing incisal
edge

Adequate reduction: facially (0.3 -0.7
mm)*



Inadequate reduction (< 0.3 mm) or slight
over-reduction (up to 1 mm more than ideal).
Facial reduction demonstrates 2 planes
Facial reduction demonstrates 3 planes
Rounded line angles

Finish line position just facial to proximal
contact (contact area was preserved)
No damage to adjacent teeth




Finish line position just facial to proximal
contact (contact area was preserved)
Minimal scratches on adjacent tooth
Incompetent (0)



Inadequate reduction (tooth still in contact
or no clearance) or over reduced to point of
exposure
Sharp line angles.
Not parallel with existing incisal edge

Lack of reduction in some areas or extensive
reduction (more than 1 mm).


Facial reduction demonstrates 1 plane
Sharp line angles

Contact area was not preserved.

Extensive damage to adjacent
4. FINSIH LINE


Type: Chamfer
Width: Chamfer (0.3-0.5 mm)



Smooth and continuous finish line.*


Facial finish line position: 0.5 mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)


Lingual finish line: 0.5 mm cervical to the
reduced incisal edge (in case of wrap
around design) with a minimal of 1mm
distance from the centric contact (for
preclinical).
Finish line position is appropriate for the
case (for clinical cases).



Type: Chamfer
Detectable narrow finish line (less than 0.3
mm).
Slight irregularity & roughness in the finish
line
Finish line position: Equigingival, up to 1mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)


Lingual finish line: up to 1mm cervical to the
reduced incisal edge (in case of wrap around
design) with a minimal of 1mm distance
from the centric contact (for preclinical).
Finish line position is appropriate for the
case (for clinical cases).




Wrong design (type)
Too wide (>0.5 mm) or undetectable finish
line.
Significant irregularity and roughness.
Facial inish line position: more than 1mm
supragingivally or subgingival (for
preclinical)
Lingual finish line: more than 1mm cervical to
the reduced incisal edge (in case of wrap
around design) with less than 1mm distance
from the centric contact (for preclinical).
Finish line position is not appropriate for the
case (for clinical cases).
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Porcelain Laminate Veneer
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
INCISAL

REDUCTION *
(when indicated)


FACIAL

REDUCTION *


PROXIMAL

REDUCTION

Adequate Incisal Clearance = 1.52mm*
Rounded line angles.
Uniform and parallel with existing
incisal edge
Adequate reduction: facially (0.3 0.7 mm)*
Facial reduction demonstrates 3
planes
Rounded line angles
Finish line position just facial to
proximal contact (contact area was
preserved)
No damage to adjacent teeth
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
FINSIH LINE






Type: Chamfer
Width: Chamfer (0.3-0.5 mm)
Smooth and continuous finish
line.*
Facial finish line position: 0.5 mm
supragingivally (for preclinical)
Lingual finish line: 0.5 mm
cervical to the reduced incisal edge
(in case of wrap around design)
with a minimal of 1mm distance
from the centric contact (for
preclinical).
Finish line position is appropriate
for the case (for clinical cases).
Total
Note:
-
Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
The procedure will not be considered an MPE if you perform on of the following:
Unjustifiable over reduction to a point of exposure
Damage to adjacent tooth involving the dentin
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form #
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Resin-Bonded Fixed Partial Denture’s Evaluation Criteria
(Anterior Teeth)
Area of Grading
PROCEDURE
1. PALATAL
REDUCTION

2. INCISAL

EXTENSION OF
PALATAL
REDUCTION
3. PROXIMAL
EXTENTION
4. CERVICAL
FINSIH LINE
CRITERIA
Competent (1)
Proficient (2)
Incompetent (0)
Even and adequate (i.e. fossa and
cingulum)
0.5 mm clearance*

Inadequate reduction, alterations are possible
to obtain desired reduction


Lack of clearance
Excessive cingulum tapering (Compromised
retention)
1.5-2 mm short of incisal edge (to avoid
metal display though the tooth)
Away from opposing occlusion

≥ 3 mm short of incisal edge (adjustable).


Too close to incisal edge (undermined
enamel)
Opposite to opposing occlusion



Lack of facial wraparound
Extensive extension compromising esthetics

Surface adjacent to edentulous area:
extending slightly facial to proximal
contact (facial wraparound)
No undercuts *

Undercuts





Type: Light chamfer
Width: 0.5 mm
Position: 0.5-1mm supragingival
Smooth and continuous finish line*
Follows gingival contour







Wrong design (type)
Deep chamfer > 1mm
Subgingival finish line
Significant irregularity and roughness
Does not follow gingival contour (not
correctable)




Surface adjacent to edentulous area: slightly
short of the proximal contact
Type: Light chamfer
Width: More than 0.5 up to 1 mm
Too high occlusally
Finish line is slightly irregular & rough in
some areas
Does not follow gingival contour. but still

adjustable
5. PATH OF
INSERTION

6. RETENTION
AND
RESISTANCE
FEATURES


One path of insertion (for maximum
resistance to dislodgment; prepare parallel
walls)
Vertical steps (flat notches or ledges)
Short grooves:
- In the vicinity of the wraparound
(proximal groove)
- In opposite side of cingulum
(cingulum groove)

Slight converging walls

Extensive convergence (a range of insertions)


Slightly shallow ledges
Shallow grooves (cingulum groove)


Lack of grooves
Too wide, too deep, too long or diverging
grooves.
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Resin Bonded Bridges
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
PALATAL
REDUCTION



INCISAL
EXTENSION OF

PALATAL
REDUCTION

PROXIMAL
EXTENTION
CERVICAL
FINSIH LINE
Even and adequate (i.e. fossa and
cingulum)
0.5 mm clearance*
1.5-2 mm short of incisal edge (to
avoid metal display though the
tooth)
Away from opposing occlusion

Surface adjacent to edentulous
area: extending slightly facial to
proximal contact (facial
wraparound)
No undercuts *





Type: Light chamfer
Width: 0.5 mm
Position: 0.5-1mm supragingival
Smooth and continuous finish line
Follows gingival contour.*
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
PATH OF
INSERTION

One path of insertion (for
maximum resistance to
dislodgment; prepare parallel
walls)
RETENTION
AND
RESISTANCE
FEATURES

Vertical steps (flat notches or
ledges)
Short grooves:
- In the vicinity of the
wraparound (proximal groove)
In opposite side of cingulum
(cingulum groove)

Total
Note:

Steps with (*) marks are CRITICALMINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Provisional Restoration's Evaluation Criteria
CRITERIA
Area of Grading
1. MARGINS
Proficient (2)
 All margins fit accurately.
Competent (1)

0.5 mm open or overhang in one
Incompetent (0)

surface
0.5 mm open or overhang in more
than one surface and/or open margin
by more than 1mm.
2. PROXIMAL CONTACTS 

Minimal deviation from the ideal
position

Significant deviation from the ideal
position
 Size:
Should be approximately


- 2 mm occluso cervical
- 2 mm buccolingual
 Tightness:
Floss should snap pass the contact without
Broad contact that doesn’t obliterate
gingival embrasure
Too broad contact that obliterate the
embrasure

Proximal contact are slightly light or
heavy on one or both sides

Open proximal contacts or excessively
tight that the provisional does not seat

improper occlusal morphology

Proper occlusal contacts in maximum
intercuspation and lack of interferences
during eccentric movements.

Infra or supra occlusion in maximum
intercuspation or presence of any
interference during eccentric
movements.
Excessively over contoured or /under
contoured restoration.
Location:
Posterior proximal contact should be at
junction of occlusal and mid 1/3
excessive resistance

Exhibit proper occlusal morphology

Proper occlusal contacts in maximum
intercuspation and lack of interferences
during eccentric movements.
4. AXIAL CONTOURS
(Buccal & Lingual)

Proper axial contour with properly
positioned height of contour.

Slightly over contoured or under
contoured restoration.

5. INTERNAL
ADAPTATION &



Retentive
Stable
Free of defects



Retentive
Stable
Minimally defective fitting surface



3. OCCLUSION
Non-retentive
Lack of stability
Significantly defective fitting surface
STABILITY (Fit)
6. PONTIC DESIGN
(when applicable)
 Ideal pontic shape and design for the

particular situation was selected.


Improper shape and/or design which
interfere with the performance of
adequate oral hygiene by the patient
(e.g. saddle-shaped pontic)
Properly shaped embrasures.

7. FINISH & POLISH
Non-ideal pontic shape and design
which does not interfere with the
performance of adequate oral hygiene
by the patient.
Improperly shaped embrasures but still
allow proper oral hygiene by the
patient.

Improperly shaped embrasures which
interfere with the performance of
adequate oral hygiene by the patient.
Smooth, free of pits, porosity and other
Minimal roughness or presence of slight
Excessive roughness, porosity and/or
defects
porosity.
irregularity.
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Provisional Restoration
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
Margins
Proximal Contacts

All margins fit accurately.*
 Location:
Posterior proximal contact should be at
junction of occlusal and mid 1/3
 Size:
Should be approximately
- 2 mm occluso cervical
- 2 mm buccolingual
 Tightness:
Floss should snap pass the contact
without excessive resistance
Occlusion

Exhibit proper occlusal
morphology

Proper occlusal contacts in
maximum intercuspation and lack
of interferences during eccentric
movements.*
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
Axial Contours
(Buccal & Lingual)
Internal Adaptation
& Stability (Fit)
Pontic Design (for
fixed dental
Proper axial contour with properly
positioned height of contour.


Retentive
Stable
Free of defects
 Ideal pontic shape and design for
the particular situation was
selected.
prosthesis)
Properly shaped embrasures.
Finish and Polish
Smooth, free of pits, porosity and other
defects
Total
Note:

Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form # 6
Final Impression Evaluation Criteria
CRITERIA
Area of Grading
Proficient (2)
1. EXACT
RECORD

2. NO VOIDS




Competent (1)
Record of fine details of prepared
tooth/teeth.*
Record of unprepared teeth
structures immediately apical to
the margins

Free of voids
Free of tears and any
imperfections
No tray show




Record of fine details of prepared
teeth
Lack to include clearly unprepared
tooth structure in one surface
apical to margins
Incompetent (0)


Free of any marginal voids.

Free of tears and any

imperfections
Slight tray show in some areas

away from the prepared tooth/teeth
and away from the occlusal
surface of the unprepared teeth.
Failure to record details of
prepared teeth
Lack to include clearly unprepared
tooth structure in more than one
surface apical to margins
Presence of any marginal void.
Presence of any tear and/or
imperfection.
Tray show in relation to the
occlusal surface of the prepared
tooth/teeth and/or the occlusal
surface of the unprepared teeth.
3. IMPRESION
MATERIAL
SUPPORT &
ADHERENCE
TO THE
TRAY

Impression material adherent to
and supported by the tray.
________


Lack of impression/tray adherence
Impression material is not
supported by the tray.
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Final Impression
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
Exact Record


Record of fine details of
prepared teeth*
Record unprepared teeth structures
immediately apical to the margins
No Voids


Free of voids
Free of tears and any
imperfections
Impression
Material I
Support &
Adherence to
the tray

Impression material should be
supported by tray*
Total
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
Note:

Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form # 11
Metal Try-in Evaluation Criteria
CRITERIA
Area of Grading
Proficient (2)

1. Proximal
Contacts


2. Metal
Framework
Seating


3. Marginal
Adaptation


4. Occlusion
Competent (1)
Proximal contacts were checked (if in
metal) with dental floss*
Any discrepancy (open or tight
contact) was detected and adjusted, if
possible.
________
Metal structure seating was checked
on the cast and intraorally.
Rocking, if any, was detected and
adjusted (if possible).*
________
Marginal adaptation was checked on
the cast and intraorally.
Marginal discrepancy, if any, was
identified and adjusted (if possible).*
________
If in metal: Occlusion was checked
for proper stable tripod occlusal
contacts in maximum intercuspation
and no occlusal interferences in all
excursions.*
________
Incompetent (0)







Proximal contacts were not checked (if
in metal).
Any discrepancy (open or tight contact)
was not detected and/or adjusted (if
possible).
Restoration seating was not checked on
the cast and/or intraorally.
Rocking, if any, was not detected and/or
not adjusted (if possible).
Marginal adaptation was not checked on
the cast and intraorally.
Marginal discrepancy, if any, was not
identified and/or not adjusted (if
possible).
If in metal: Occlusal interferences and/or
lack of stable intercuspation were not
detected.



5. Contour

Necessary adjustment was performed,
if indicated.
If occlusal porcelain: adequate
clearance and proper metal/porcelain
junction were checked.
Embrasures and contours were
evaluated for the proper size of the
embrasures and connectors.

________

Necessary adjustment, was not
performed, if indicated.
If occlusal porcelain: adequate clearance
and proper metal/porcelain junction
were not checked.
Embrasures and contours were not
evaluated for the proper size of the
embrasures and connectors..
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Metal Try-In
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Ethical conduct and
professionalism
Yes
No
Yes
No
Infection control
No
No
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material selection and
answers instructor’s questions correctly with justification
Knowledge
Yes
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using clear words
and logical sequence
Communication skills
Yes
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues, student follows
faculty directives, student wears appropriate professional attire, presents only
his/her work (no cheating)
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Evaluation Criteria
procedures
Proximal contacts were checked (if
in metal) with dental floss*

Any discrepancy (open or tight
contact) was detected and adjusted,
if possible.

Cast Seating


Marginal Adaptation


Occlusion
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0

Proximal Contacts
Student self-


Metal structure seating was
checked on the cast and intraorally.
Rocking, if any, was detected and
adjusted (if possible). *
Marginal adaptation was checked
on the cast and intraorally.
Marginal discrepancy, if any, was
identified and adjusted (if
possible).*
If in metal: Occlusion was checked
for proper stable tripod occlusal
contacts in maximum
intercuspation and no occlusal
interferences in all excursions. *
Necessary adjustment was
performed, if indicated.
If occlusal porcelain: adequate
clearance and proper
metal/porcelain junction were
checked.
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback

Contour
Embrasures and contours were
evaluated for the proper size of the
embrasures and connectors.
Total
Note:

Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI-STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
Faculty Stamp and Signature
No
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form #13
Porcelain Try-in Evaluation Criteria
Area of
Grading
Proficient (2)

1. Proximal
Contacts

2. Restoration
Seating


3. Marginal
Adaptation


4. Occlusion
5. Contour



Proximal contacts were checked with
dental floss and any discrepancy (open
or tight contact) was detected and
adjusted, if possible.
Restoration seating was checked on
the cast and intraorally.
Any rocking, if any, was detected and
adjusted, if possible.
Marginal adaptation was checked on
the cast and intraorally.
Any marginal discrepancy was
identified and adjusted (if possible).
CRITERIA
Competent (1)
Incompetent (0)

Proximal contacts were not checked
and any discrepancy (open or tight
contact) was not detected.

Restoration seating was not checked
on the cast and/or Intraorally.
Rocking, if any, was not detected
and/or adjusted.
________
________


________



Occlusion was checked for proper
stable tripod occlusal contacts in
maximum intercuspation
No interferences in protrusive and
lateral excursions.
________
Contour was checked and evaluated.
Necessary adjustments, if any, were
________



Marginal adaptation was not checked
on the cast and intraorally.
Any marginal discrepancy, if any, was
not identified and/or not adjusted (if
possible).
Occlusion was not checked.
Lack of stable tripod occlusal contacts
in maximum intercuspation, which
was not dentected.
Interferences in protrusive or lateral
excursions.
Contour was not checked.
Necessary adjustments, if any, were
performed.
6. Esthetics
and Phonetics


Esthetics and phonetics were checked.
Patient approval was obtained.
not performed.

________

Esthetics and phonetics were not
checked.
Patient approval was not obtained.
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Porcelain Try-In
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and
Evaluation Criteria
procedures

Proximal contacts were checked
with dental floss and any
discrepancy (open or tight
contact) was detected and
adjusted, if possible.

Restoration seating was checked
on the cast and intraorally.
 Any rocking if any, was
detected and adjusted, if
possible.

Marginal adaptation was checked
on the case and intraorally.
Any marginal discrepancy was
identified and adjusted (if
possible).
Restoration Seating*
Adaptation*
Occlusion*
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
Proximal Contacts*
Marginal
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient


Occlusion was checked for
proper stable tripod occlusal
contacts in maximum
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
intercuspation
No interferences in protrusive
and lateral excursions.


Contour
Contour was checked and
evaluated.
Necessary adjustments, if any,
were performed.

Esthetics and

Phonetics*

Esthetics and phonetics were
checked.
Patient approval was obtained.
Total
Note:


Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI-STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Student is allowed for only one porcelain try-in per case.
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form # 12
Trial Cementation Evaluation Criteria
CRITERIA
Area of Grading
1. Cement
selection
2. Restoration
Seating
Proficient (2)
Incompetent (0)

Proper selection of the
provisional cement
________

Improperly selected provisional
cement.

Completely seated restoration
with no occlusal alteration
________

Improperly seated restoration
causing occlusal interferences and
marginal discrepancy
Slight cement remnants around
restoration and under pontic

Messy cement remnants around
restoration and under pontic


3. Excess
Cement
Removal
Competent (1)
No cement remnants around
restoration(s) and pontic
tissue surface


4. Oral Hygiene
Instructions
Demonstrates oral hygiene
instructions (including, the
use of floss threader and
proxy brush when indicated).
________

Failure to demonstrate oral
hygiene instructions
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Trial Cementation
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
Cement selection
Restoration Seating*
Excess Cement
Removal*
Oral Hygiene
Instructions*
Total

Proper selection of the provisional
cement

Completely seated restoration with
no occlusal alteration

No cement remnants around
restoration(s) and pontic tissue
surface

Demonstrates oral hygiene
instructions (including, the use of
floss threader and proxy brush
when indicated).
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
Note:

Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI-STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form #14
Final Cementation Evaluation Criteria
CRITERIA
Area of Grading
Proficient (2)

Proper cement selection and
manipulation


Restoration completely seated
No alteration of occlusion

No cement remnants around
restoration(s) and pontic tissue
surface
Cement Selection
Restoration
Competent (1)
________
Incompetent (0)

Improper cement selection or
manipulation

Improperly seated restoration with
occlusal interferences and
marginal discrepancy

Messy cement remnants around
restoration and under pontic

Failure to demonstrate oral
hygiene instructions
________
Seating
Excess Cement
Removal

Oral Hygiene
Instructions
Demonstrates oral hygiene
instructions (including, the use of
floss threader and proxy brush
when indicated).
________
________
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Final Cementation
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0

Proper cement selection and
manipulation


Restoration completely seated
No alteration of occlusion

No cement remnants around
restoration(s) and pontic tissue
surface

Demonstrates oral hygiene
instructions (including, the use of
floss threader and proxy brush
when indicated).
Cement Selection*
Restoration Seating*
Excess Cement
Removal*
Oral Hygiene
Instructions*
Total
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
Note:

Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI-STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Cast Post and Core
CRITERIA
PROCEDURE
Proficient (2)



1.
2.
Preparation
of coronal
tooth
structure
Removal of
Root Canal
Filling
Material






3.
4.
Post Space
Preparation
Ferrule
Effect



Competent (1)
____________
Adequate coronal tooth reduction.
All unsupported tooth structure was removed.
Part of remaining coronal tissue is prepared
perpendicular to the post (+ve stop against
wedging).
Part of remaining coronal tissue is prepared
parallel to the post (+ve stop against rotation)
(Anti-rotation groove if insufficient tooth
structure remains)
No internal or external undercuts
No sharp angles
Smooth finish line
At least 3-5 mm good apical seal of gutta percha
left.
Minimal canal enlargement to receive
appropriate post
Gradual taper
No undercuts or ledges that was created by the
students during the post space preparation.
1.5-2 mm of vertical sound tooth structure
obtained when possible.
Incompetent (0)





Inadequate reduction of coronal tooth
structure.
Unsupported tooth structure not removed
Absence of +ve stop against wedging.
Absence of anti-rotation groove if
insufficient tooth structure remains
Internal or external undercuts that will
prevent withdrawal of the pattern

____________



< 3mm of Gutta percha left.

Canal width enlargement exceeding 1/3 diameter
at cervical area (1mm left circumferentially of
sound tooth structure)
No undercuts or ledges that was created by the
students during the post space preparation.


Canal width enlargement exceeding ½
diameter at cervical area (less than 1mm left
circumferentially of sound tooth structure)
Over tapered canal
Presence of ledges or undercuts that was
created by the students during the post
space preparation.
____________

Ferrule not obtained when possible.

5.
6.
Pattern
Build-Up
Post & Core
Try-In

Adequate ferrule thickness (at least 1mm)
Post fabrication
 Dowel pattern extended to the full depth of
prepared canal
 Dowel pattern inserted and removed easily
without bending, with tug back
 Conforms to shape of canal space with no
defects or porosities
Core fabrication
 Properly shaped to receive final restoration
 Conform to the shape of the optimal tooth
preparation.
 Accurate fit of core/tooth interface
Post fabrication
 Dowel pattern is short by 1-2 mm to full length

Passive fit, without tug back

Minimal porosities or defects (correctable)
Core fabrication
 Slightly over-contoured core build-up.
-Student evaluated the cast post and core and
identified deficiencies:
Post
 Fits accurately to full length
 Passively fit without interfering
 No casting defects
Core
 Properly shaped for minimal adjustments to
receive final restoration
 Accurate fit of core/tooth interface
____________
-Student performed the necessary adjustment/s, when
needed and possible.
7.
Cementation


Proper type of cement was selected.
Accurately seated.
Inadequate ferrule thickness (<1mm)
Post fabrication
 Tight or loose pattern
 Short post length (> 2 mm)
Core fabrication
 Significantly over-contoured or undercontoured contoured core build-up.
 Marked discrepancy at the tooth /core
junction
-Student did not evaluate the cast post and core
and/or failed to identify deficiencies:
-Student did not performe the necessary
adjustment/s, when needed and possible.

Increased gap at post/gutta percha interface or
core/sound tooth structure interface by 0.5mm or
less.


Improper selection of cement.
Increased gap at post/gutta percha interface
or core/sound tooth structure interface (by



Luting agent fill all dead space within the root
canal system.
No voids.
Excess cement was removed.
more than 0.5mm)


Slight voids were observed in the post-insertion
radiograph.
Cement residues exists
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Cast Post and Core
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0


Preparation of
coronal tooth
structure






Removal of Root
Canal Filling Material

Facial structure of the tooth is adequately
reduced for good esthetics
Part of remaining coronal tissue is
prepared perpendicular to the post (+ve
stop against wedging)
Part of remaining coronal tissue is
prepared parallel to the post (+ve stop
against rotation)
(Anti-rotation groove if insufficient tooth
structure remains)
No internal or external undercuts*
All unsupported tooth structure is
removed
No sharp angles
Smooth finish line
3-5 mm good apical seal of gutta
percha*
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
Post Space
Preparation
Ferrule Effect

Minimal canal enlargement to receive
appropriate post

Gradual taper

No undercuts or ledges that was
created by the students during the post
space preparation.*

1.5-2 mm of vertical sound tooth
structure obtained when possible.*

Adequate ferrule thickness (at least
1mm) *
Post fabrication

Pattern Build-Up
Dowel pattern extended to the full
depth of prepared canal*

Dowel pattern inserted and removed
easily without bending

Conforms to shape of canal space with
no defects or porosities
Core fabrication


Properly shaped to receive final
restoration
Conform to the shape of the optimal
tooth preparation.

Accurate fit of core/tooth interface*
-Student evaluated the cast post and core and
identified deficiencies:
Post
Post & Core Try-In

Fits accurately to full length

Passively fit without interfering*

No casting defects
Core

Properly shaped for minimal adjustments
to receive final restoration

Accurate fit of core/tooth interface*
-Student performed the necessary
adjustment/s, when needed and possible.
Cementation

Proper type of cement was selected.

Accurately seated.*

Luting agent fill all dead space within
the root canal system.

No voids.

Excess cement was removed.
Total
Note:

Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Prefabricated Post and Core
CRITERIA
PROCEDURE
1.
2.
3.
Preparation
of coronal
tooth
structure
Removal of
Root Canal
Filling
Material
Post Space
Preparation
Proficient (2)
Competent (1)





Adequate coronal tooth reduction.
All unsupported tooth structure was removed.
No external undercuts
No sharp angles
Smooth finish line
____________

At least 3-5 mm good apical seal of gutta percha
left.

Minimal canal enlargement to receive
appropriate post size.
Gradual taper
No undercuts or ledges that was created by the
students during the post space preparation.



4.
Ferrule
Effect




5.
Cementation



6.
Core BuildUp




1.5-2 mm of vertical sound tooth structure
obtained when possible.
Adequate ferrule thickness (at least 1mm)
Incompetent (0)



Inadequate reduction of coronal tooth
structure.
Unsupported tooth structure not removed
External undercut.
____________

Less than 3mm of Gutta percha left.
Canal width enlargement exceeding 1/3 diameter
at cervical area (1mm left circumferentially of
sound tooth structure).
No undercuts or ledges that was created by the
students during the post space preparation.



Canal width enlargement exceeding ½
diameter at cervical area (less than 1mm left
circumferentially of sound tooth structure),
Over tapered canal.
Presence of ledges or undercuts that was
created by the students during the post
space preparation.
____________

Ferrule not obtained when possible.

Inadequate ferrule thickness (<1mm)
Improper selection of the cement.
Increased gap at post/gutta percha interface
by more than 0.5mm.
>3 small voids or large voids in the postinsertion radiograph.
Proper type of cement was selected.
No gap at post/gutta percha interface.
Luting agent fill all dead space within the root
canal system.
No voids in the post-insertion radiograph.

Increased gap at post/gutta percha interface by
0.5mm or less.



1-3 small voids were observed in the postinsertion radiograph.

Proper selection of the core material
Core properly shaped to receive final restoration
conform to the shape of the optimal tooth
preparation.
No voids within the core.
Accurate adaptation at the core/tooth interface.

1-3 small voids were observed in the postinsertion radiograph.




Improper selection of the core material.
Core improperly shaped and does not
provide adequate retention and resistance
forms.
>3 small voids or large voids in the postinsertion radiograph.
Gap at the core/tooth interface.
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Prefabricated Post and Core
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
Preparation of
coronal tooth
structure





Removal of Root
Canal Filling Material
Post Space
Preparation

At least 3-5 mm good apical seal of
gutta percha left.*

Minimal canal enlargement to receive
appropriate post size.
Gradual taper
No undercuts or ledges that was
created by the students during the
post space preparation.*



Ferrule Effect
Adequate coronal tooth reduction.
All unsupported tooth structure was
removed.
No external undercuts *
No sharp angles
Smooth finish line

1.5-2 mm of vertical sound tooth
structure obtained when possible.*
Adequate ferrule thickness (at least
1mm). *
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
Cementation
Core Build-Up



Proper type of cement was selected.
No gap at post/gutta percha interface.
Luting agent fill all dead space within
the root canal system.
No voids in the post-insertion
radiograph.


Proper selection of the core material
Core properly shaped to receive final
restoration conform to the shape of the
optimal tooth preparation.
No voids within the core.
Accurate adaptation at the
core/tooth interface.*


Total
Note:

Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date
Faculty of Dentistry
Fixed Prosthodontics Division
Oral & Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Dept
Form # 8R
Wax Pattern Evaluation Criteria
CRITERIA
Area of Grading
1.
2.
Occlusal
Contour
Facial & lingual
contour and
profile
3.
Surface texture
4.
Interproximal
contour and
contacts
5.
Margin finish
Proficient (2)
Competent (1)
Incompetent (0)

Well-defined anatomy, with correct
cusp height & position.

Well-defined anatomy, with incorrect
cusp height and/or position.

Ill-defined occlusal surface anatomy

Well-defined facial and lingual
contour and profile.
Correct height of contour position &
form.

Slightly ill-defined facial and lingual
contour and profile.
Correct height of contour position &
form.


Did not follow facial or lingual contour
and profile (too square or too round).
Incorrect height of contour position &
form.

Smooth and polished surface (no
scratches).

Roughness in relation to at least one
surface.

Significant irregularity or nodular surface

Positive proximal contacts (with
correct position and size)
Correct proximal contour and form.


Positive proximal contacts.
Incorrect proximal contour and/or form.

Open proximal contact.
Smooth and continuous marginal
finish.
Correct margin position

Roughness and/or irregularities in relation
to the margin of the wax pattern.
Correct margin position.


Open or overextended margin.
Negative or positive margin (in relation to
the horizontal axis)








6.
Occlusion

Tripod contact for each centric
(functional) cusp in maximum
intercuspation.
No occlusal interference of posterior
teeth on working side, non-working
side or protrusive movements.
7.
Pontic and
connector
design (only for
FPD)


Appropriate pontic design.
Appropriate connector design and size.


Slightly high contact in maximum
intercuspation.
No occlusal interference of posterior teeth
on working side, non-working side or
protrusive movements.

____________



No contact or significantly high contact
during in maximum intercuspation
Any kind of interferences between
maxillary & mandibular posterior teeth on
working side, non-working side or
protrusive movements.
Inappropriate pontic design.
Inappropriate connector design and size.
Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation Department – Fixed Prosthodontics
Minimal Procedural Experiences (MPE) Evaluation Form
Wax Pattern
4th yr
5th yr
6th yr
Student Name
Patient’s File No.
Computer No.
Pre-op approval
Serial No.
Tooth No.
Student shows respect towards staff, patients, and colleagues,
Ethical conduct and
student follows faculty directives, student wears appropriate
professionalism
Yes
No
professional attire, presents only his/her work (no cheating)
Surfaces are clean, no visible littering, disinfected, properly
Infection control
Yes
No
Communication
wrapped
Student communicates efficiently with patient and instructor using
skills
Yes
No
clear words and logical sequence
Student knows the principles of the procedure and material
Knowledge
Yes
No
selection and answers instructor’s questions correctly with
justification
Clinical Procedure Evaluation:
Steps and procedures
Evaluation Criteria
0 = incompetent, 1 = competent, 2 = proficient
Student self-
Instructor
evaluation
evaluation
0
Occlusal Contour
Facial & lingual
contour and profile
Surface texture
Interproximal
contour and contacts
Margin finish

Well-defined anatomy, with
correct cusp height & position.

Well-defined facial and lingual
contour and profile.
Correct height of contour position
& form.


Smooth and polished surface (no
scratches).

Positive proximal contacts (with
correct position and size)*
Correct proximal contour and
form.



Occlusion

Smooth and continuous marginal
finish.
Correct margin position*
Tripod contact for each centric
(functional) cusp in maximum
intercuspation.*
1
2
0
1
2
Feedback
Pontic and connector
design (only for FPD)

No occlusal interference of
posterior teeth on working side,
non-working side or protrusive
movements.


Appropriate pontic design
Appropriate connector design and
size
Total
Note:

Steps with (*) marks are CRITICAL MINI- STEPS. This clinical procedure will not be considered an MPE if you
score ZERO in any one of them
Accepted as MPE
Yes
No
Faculty Stamp and Signature
Date