ArticleDentistry journal2024
Efficacy of Virtual Preparation Simulators Compared to Traditional Preparations on Phantom Heads.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the effects of adjunct VR-haptic simulator practice in preclinical restorative training and predicting student performance using machine learning: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Screen-Based Haptic Virtual Reality Simulators in Preclinical Prosthodontic Crown Preparation: Mixed Methods Analysis Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Comparative Performance of Haptic Virtual Simulation vs. Conventional Training in Class V Cavity Preparation: A Paired In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Exploring the frontier of dental education: a cross-sectional study of VR simulation and manikin-based training at Ziauddin university.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual simulators are increasingly being introduced in dental education. This study investigates whether virtual simulators offer comparable or superior educational efficacy when compared to traditional phantom simulators. MATERIALS AND
methodsParticipants were randomly allocated into groups: Virtual Preparation (SIM; n = 30) and Traditional Preparation (FRA; n = 30). Students were tasked with preparing tooth 36 for a full-cast crown during free practice for four days. Faculty staff provided feedback to both groups. Examinations were administered and graded by three examiners (preclinical and clinical consultants and a dental surgery consultant). Additionally, a survey was conducted to assess each training concept.
resultsThe FRA group achieved significantly better grades in the preparation exam evaluations by all three examiners, compared to the SIM group. Interrater reliability showed only moderate agreement, with the clinical examiner giving better grades than the other two. The questionnaire results indicate that while participants managed with the virtual system, they preferred the analog system for exams and patient preparation.
conclusionVirtual simulators do not seem to be as good when it comes to practicing for a preparation exam or clinical preparation, especially for unexperienced students. However, they still appear to be useful as an additional tool for introducing students to the topic of preparation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.