Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32811485›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2020

Virtual versus jaw simulation in Oral implant education: a randomized controlled trial.

Baoping Zhang, Sihong Li, Shuting Gao, Mingfang Hou, Hong Chen, Lulu He, Yiting Li, Yumeng Guo, Errui Wang, Rui Cao and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Baoping ZhangSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Sihong LiSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Shuting GaoSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Mingfang HouCollege of Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Hong ChenSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Lulu HeSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Yiting LiSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Yumeng GuoSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Errui WangSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Rui CaoSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Jingyang ChengSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Ruiping LiSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Kailiang ZhangSchool of Stomatology Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China. zhangkllzu@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5661-3979
Lanzhou University · CNLanzhou City University · CNLanzhou University Second Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis research aims to investigate the evaluation methods of teaching oral implant clinical courses and estimate the effectiveness of a virtual simulation platform.

methodsEighty second- and third-year undergraduates in Lanzhou University were recruited and randomized to either three experimental groups or one control group. The subjects undertook theoretical examinations to test their basic level of knowledge after training in similarly unified knowledge courses. Each student group then participated in an eight-hour operating training session. An operation test on pig mandible was conducted, followed by a second theoretical examination. The assessment consists of three distinct parts: a subjective operating score by a clinical senior teacher, an implant accuracy analysis in cone-beam computed tomography (angular, apical, and entrance deviation), and comparison of the two theoretical examinations. Finally, students completed a questionnaire gauging their understanding of the virtual simulation.

resultsThere was no significant difference between the four groups in first theoretical examination (P > 0.05); the second theoretical scores of the V-J and J-V group (62.90 ± 3.70, 60.05 ± 2.73) were significantly higher than the first time (57.05 ± 3.92, P < 0.05), while no difference between the V (57.10 ± 3.66) and J (56.89 ± 2.67) groups was found. Thus, the combination of V-J was effective in improving students' theoretical scores. The V-J and J-V groups had higher scores on operation (73.98 ± 4.58, 71.85 ± 4.67) and showed better implant precision.

conclusionVirtual simulation education, especially with a jaw simulation model, could improve students' implantology achievements and training. Currently study found that the V-J group may performed better than the J-V group in oral implant teaching.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementAnimalsComputer SimulationEducational StatusHumansStudentsSwineDental educationImplant accuracy examinationPreclinical implant trainingTheoretical knowledge gradeVirtual reality model

Identifiers

PMID32811485
PMCPMC7433198
OpenAlexW3076229068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.