Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Evaluating the effects of adjunct VR-haptic simulator practice in preclinical restorative training and predicting student performance using machine learning: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
backgroundAlthough undergraduate preclinical training is commonly carried out on phantom mannequins, virtual reality (VR) devices have started to be used as supplementary tools. This study aimed to investigate the impact of adjunct VR-haptic simulator practice on undergraduate dental education in restorative practice and to explore whether machine-learning models can predict faculty-assigned letter grades.
methodsA total of 100 undergraduate students participated in the study, with 50 receiving 8 hours of phantom training only, while the other 50 received 8 hours of phantom training plus an additional 4 hours of VR-haptic simulator training. All students prepared a Class I cavity, which was graded independently by two experienced lecturers. (100-point scale). Inter-rater agreement was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; two-way random-effects, absolute agreement, average measures; ICC(2,2) = 0.85, (95% CI: 0.72-0.86)). The effect of dental simulator use on cavity performance was analyzed. Twenty-six features were extracted to predict students’ letter grades using four different machine learning methods (Naive Bayes, decision tree, random forest (RF), and support vector machines). In addition, the result of the best-performing method was explained using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) to describe feature-prediction associations (not causality).
resultsThe best scores were obtained with the RF (Accuracy=0.8273, Macro-F1-score=0.8205, Macro average precision=0.8304, Macro average recall=0.8309). The SHAP explainability results indicate that the most deterministic features are the occlusal outline, simulator usage, and point angle. These findings suggest that simulator usage significantly impacts student performance, contributing to improved grades.
conclusionIn preclinical restorative training, adjunct VR-haptic simulator exposure was found to be associated with faculty-assigned performance grades on a Class I cavity preparation task. Machine-learning models can be employed to predict the letter grades assigned by faculty members.
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.