ArticleInnovative surgical sciences2025
Who takes the lead in oral surgery simulation? Students' perceptions and practical skills towards virtual reality and phantom model training: a comparative study.
Article in Innovative surgical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Virtual reality (VR) simulators are considered a promising tool for significantly enhancing surgical skills. This study aims to compare the use of a VR simulator with a conventional phantom model in oral surgery training. The findings should contribute to the further development of oral surgery simulation training and help maximize the innovative benefits of VR-based training. Methods: This prospective, cross-sectional, single center study analyzed students' competence in performing an osteotomy on a displaced tooth 38. Participants were dental students in their 5th semester at a University Medical Center in Germany. The study compared a VR simulator with a phantom model. After completing the exercise, students filled out a questionnaire consisting of both standardized and open-ended questions to allow for a comprehensive subjective evaluation of the training experience. Results: A total of 22 students took part in the study (12 female, 10 male). None had previously performed the exercise on a patient. From the students' perspective, both training methods were easy to learn (VR:2.0; Ph: 2.1; p=0.642). Individual feedback highlighted that the VR simulator's main advantages were sustainability (n=12) and objectivity (n=5). However, standardized responses indicated that the phantom model was rated as more realistic, particularly regarding anatomical representation (p<0.001), haptic feedback (p<0.001) tooth removal (p<0.001) and osteotomy steps (p<0.001). Both exercises were equally engaging for students (VR:1.8; Ph:1.5; p=0.162). Conclusion: Simulation-based training is an engaging way for students to learn surgical tooth removal. Currently, conventional simulation is subjectively perceived as superior to VR simulation, particularly in terms of realism. However, VR simulation allows for a more objective assessment of performance and is considered superior to the phantom model in terms of sustainability. Further technological advancements and improvements in realism could help maximize the innovative benefits of VR-based 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.