Trial reportJournal of dental education2026
A Comparative Study of Virtual Reality and Traditional Methods for Surgical Instrument Training.
Trial report in Journal of dental education, 2026. 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.
- Evaluation of surgical visualization headset in dental education for preclinical bone augmentation surgery.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
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
PURPOSE/
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) training compared to traditional physical model training in improving dental students' ability to recognize oral surgical instruments.
methodsIn 2024, 39 seventh-semester dental students were randomly assigned to a VR group (n = 19) or a non-VR group (n = 20). All participants first attended a seminar on surgical instruments. The VR group trained in a custom-developed interactive scenario using the VR headset, while the non-VR group used physical instruments. Pre- and post-tests assessed instrument recognition, and students rated their confidence using a visual analog scale. Questionnaire feedback on the VR experience was also collected.
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvements from pre- to post-test (p = 0.001 for VR; p < 0.0001 for non-VR). The non-VR group outperformed the VR group in the post-test (median = 8.0 vs. 5.0; p = 0.003) and reported higher confidence levels (mean = 3.85 vs. 3.41; p = 0.004). The VR group showed better recognition of select instruments (Elevator, Langenbeck, Blade Shaft) and reported high levels of satisfaction with the training environment. A significant correlation was observed between video game experience and VR familiarity (R = -0.422, p < 0.001).
conclusionVR-based training enhances student engagement and confidence but was less effective than traditional methods in overall instrument recognition. These findings support using VR as a complementary tool in dental education, particularly in early-stage surgical training.
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.