ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Evaluation of the Application of a Dental Virtual Simulator to Pre-Clinical Pediatric Dental Training.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As a dental simulator, the Simodont Dental Trainer (SDT) is widely used in preclinical dental training in many dental schools. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of SDT training versus the traditional operation training based on head-simulator (HS) in enhancing undergraduate students' dental operative skills. Furthermore, the study intends to investigate the optimal sequence for integrating SDT training with the traditional training curriculum in order to optimize the overall course design.. Methods: Eighty-two undergraduate dental students were recruited and randomized into two groups. Group A initially practiced on the SDT and group B practiced on the KaVo head-simulator (HS) first. Subsequently, both groups practiced again on the HS system. The two groups then exchanged training systems for practice, and underwent test on the HS system. A questionnaire was administered to all the students when the training sequences were completed. Results: Both the short-term teaching effectiveness of virtual training and the impact of training sequence on students' long-term performance varied depending on the specific dental operation. Students encountered varying levels of technical difficulty across the two training systems, even when practicing the same procedure. Virtual training is generally acknowledged by students, yet more than half of them perceived real-world head-simulator-based practice more beneficial for improving operational proficiency. Conclusion: The SDT serves as a useful supplement to traditional preclinical dental training, providing students with a platform to refine their technical skills efficiently. However, obvious difference in the sensory experiences is notable between the virtual reality and real-world training systems. SDT may be particularly beneficial for procedures requiring distinct tactile feedback. The widespread acceptance of virtual training by undergraduate dental students highlights virtual reality's promise in dental education, though systematic integration and training curriculum design still require continuous exploration and refinement.
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.