ArticleBMC medical education2025
Effect of a virtual reality simulator for preclinical instruction of operative dentistry on level of competence of undergraduate dental students.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research progress on the application of virtual simulation in medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the effect of a virtual reality (VR) simulator for instruction of restorative dentistry on the level of competence of undergraduate dental students.
methodsThis case-control study was conducted on 55 third-year dental students, who were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 30) and control (n = 25) groups. Both groups received the same theoretical instruction for preparation of a Class I cavity in a mandibular first molar. The control group then practiced cavity preparation on acrylic teeth for 8 h. The intervention group practiced by using a VR simulator for 4 h and practicing on acrylic teeth for 4 h. Both groups participated in a pretest on acrylic teeth. The intervention group had one posttest after using the VR simulator and another posttest after practicing on acrylic teeth. The control group also had two posttests after the first and second phases of practice. The performance of the two groups was scored blindly by three examiners. Data were analyzed by independent and paired t-test, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test (alpha = 0.05).
resultsThe improvement in overall performance was significantly greater in the intervention group than the control group (P < 0.05). Progression in the first step (pretest-posttest 1) was significantly greater in 5 out of 9 criteria in the intervention group than the control group (P < 0.05). Progression in the second step (posttest 1-posttest 2) was significantly greater in the intervention group than the control group in 6 out of 9 criteria (P < 0.05). The reduction in catastrophic errors in the first posttest compared to pretest was significantly greater in the intervention group than the control group (P = 0.000 for the VR group and P = 0.006 for the control group).
conclusionsVR simulation can improve the quality of learning of preclinical restorative dentistry, and may be used as an educational supplement in dental curricula.
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.