ArticleFrontiers in oral health2025
Application of virtual reality haptic simulators in periodontics: insights from dental professionals.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 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
Introduction: Virtual reality haptic simulator (VRHS)-training devices that integrate visual immersion with tactile feedback- are increasingly used in dental education, yet their application in periodontics remains limited. Sonic scaling requires high tactile precision and control, making it a suitable domain for evaluating VRHS efficacy. This study assessed faculty perceptions and performance using VRHS for preclinical periodontal training compared with conventional simulation. Methods: A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures study was conducted with 30 calibrated faculty members (15 periodontists; 15 general dentists) from the European University of Valencia. Each participant performed standardized calculus removal tasks using both the Simodont® dental trainer and conventional mannequin-based models. Objective outcomes-treatment time, residual calculus, and tip angulation-were recorded, and perceptions were collected through a 14-item Likert questionnaire and open-ended questions adapted from Philip et al. (2023) and Bakr et al. (2016). Results: Treatment time was significantly shorter in conventional training (26.7% completed <2 min) compared with VRHS (13.3%; Conclusion: VRHS improved precision and consistency in preclinical scaling while requiring longer completion times. Faculty endorsed its educational value as a complementary tool to conventional training. Continued refinement in tactile realism and broader multicenter validation are needed to consolidate its integration into periodontal education.
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.