JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Patient education is central to orthodontic care, yet most patients still learn about their malocclusion using two-dimensional images or physical models. Immersive virtual reality (VR) and other extended reality (XR) tools allow patients to view and manipulate three-dimensional dental models in a head-tracked virtual environment, but evidence on patient-facing immersive VR in orthodontics remains limited.

Objective:

This feasibility study aimed to evaluate orthodontic patients' acceptance, perceived educational value, and usability of an immersive VR consultation room, and to characterize positive and negative aspects of the experience to inform iterative refinement and future controlled studies.

Methods:

This cross-sectional survey study was conducted in a university orthodontic clinic between August and September 2024. Current orthodontic patients undergoing active treatment were invited to complete a single immersive VR educational experience using a Meta Quest 3 headset and a Unity3D-developed virtual consultation room, followed by an investigator-developed post-experience questionnaire. The questionnaire combined Likert-scale items on interest, perceived educational utility, ease of use, and preference, two 10-point numeric ratings of overall experience and ease of use, and open-ended items. Descriptive statistics summarized closed-ended responses, and open-ended comments were grouped into recurring themes.

Results:

Twenty-eight patients completed the study (mean age 21.6 years; 18 male, 10 female). Sixteen participants (16/28, 57%) had no prior VR experience. Twenty-two (22/28, 79%) reported being interested or very interested in using VR to learn about their teeth, and 24 (24/28, 86%) agreed or strongly agreed that VR could help patients understand their teeth and the role of braces. The mean overall experience rating was 7.9 (SD 1.6) on a 10-point scale and the mean ease-of-use rating was 6.6 (SD 2.6). Twenty participants (20/28, 71%) felt VR was a better learning modality than physical models; 19 (19/28, 68%) preferred VR with the current setup, and 25 (25/28, 89%) preferred VR under an improved-technology scenario. Positive comments emphasized interactivity, three-dimensional visualization, and engagement; negative comments centered on controller difficulty, latency, and occasional motion discomfort.

Conclusions:

Patients in this feasibility study were generally receptive to an immersive VR consultation room as an adjunct to orthodontic patient education, even when many had no prior VR exposure. Usability barriers and motion-related discomfort remain important targets for design refinement. The marked increase in preference for VR under an improved-technology scenario supports continued iterative development and indicates the need for controlled studies measuring objective knowledge gain.