JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Dental simulators are increasingly being used for skill training in various procedures.

Objective:

To explore the effectiveness and methodologies of virtual reality dental simulators in veneer tooth preparation training.

Methods:

A total of 80 fourth-year students from Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology were randomly allocated to eight groups. Different simulators, Unidental® and Simodont®, and teaching methodologies (simulator-first or phantom-head-first) were used to train for veneer tooth preparation. All participants completed a questionnaire survey evaluating the simulators, and preparations were scored by a single teacher.

Results:

There were no statistically significant differences in the preparation quality among groups using different training methods (phantom head, Simodont®, or Unidental®) (P=.81) or different training methodologies (simulator-first vs. phantom-head-first) (simulator first: P=.18; phantom head first: P=.09, different sequences of Unidental: P=.16; different sequences of Simodont: P=.11). However, significant differences were observed between the evaluations of the two simulators in terms of realism of the odontoscope’s reflection(P<.001), force feedback(P=.007), and simulation of the tooth preparation process (P=.003). Evaluation results showed no statistical differences between the two simulators in display effect(P=.24), synchronism of virtual and actual dental instruments(P=.11), and dental bur operation simulation (P=.16). The Unidental® simulator was rated better than the Simodont® simulator in terms of the realism of odontoscope’s reflection. In all other aspects, Simodont® was superior to Unidental®. There was no significant difference in the students’ attitudes towards the two simulators (improve skills: P=.19; inspire to learn: P=.29; will to use: P=.40; suitable for training: P=.39).

Conclusions:

Virtual reality simulators could achieve the same training effect as traditional phantom heads, with no significant difference between the two simulators. The sequence of simulator use did not affect the final training outcome.