ArticleBMC medical education2025
Perceptions of the use of a 3D-printed manufactured educational simulator for incisions and sutures.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A porcineTranslational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Fabrication and evaluation of a novel patient-specific 3D-printed simulation model for oral surgical training.BMC medical education · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe acquisition of clinical and surgical skills is fundamental to dental training. Traditional methods such as cadaveric dissection and porcine models face ethical, logistical, and reproducibility challenges. In this study, we evaluate a novel 3D-printed simulator produced with Polyjet technology for incision and suture training and compare its educational value to that of animal models.
methodsA total of 69 participants—27 undergraduate students, 19 postgraduate students and 23 expert oral surgeons— tested 30 identical simulators at Paris-Cité University. The simulators were created from intraoral scans using GrabCAD software and manufactured with Polyjet 3D printing. The participants observed the model, performed incisions, created gingival flaps, and sutured. They subsequently completed an 11-item satisfaction questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsParticipants in all groups reported a high level of overall satisfaction (mean 4.50). The simulator received particularly high ratings for visual realism (mean 4.14) and educational interest (mean 4.48), with postgraduate students providing the highest visual scores (4.26) and experts providing slightly lower scores (4.04). The participants recommended improvements in tissue adhesion, detachment, thickness, and suture resistance to better mimic human tissues.
conclusionsThe 3D-printed simulator offers a reproducible, ethically sound alternative to animal models, delivering excellent visual fidelity and strong educational value. While tactile feedback requires further refinement, this innovative tool shows promise for improving surgical training in dental education. Future work will focus on optimizing haptic properties and expanding the application of the simulator to other surgical procedures.
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.