3D virtual technologies are increasingly used in contemporary anatomy curricula with ongoing debate about their benefits and impact on learning. One such technology, the Anatomage Virtual Dissection Table is a touch‐pad instrument capable of displaying four life‐size fully segmented male and female bodies which can be virtually dissected layer‐by‐layer to display all organ systems. Little data is available describing how best to incorporate the Table into anatomy instruction either as a stand‐alone tool or in conjunction with other teaching modalities. In 2019, seven Anatomage Tables were used in their first large scale deployment in two different anatomy courses at UT Health San Antonio for 44 Occupational Therapy Doctorate (OTD) and 48 Physician Assistant Studies (PAS) students . To gauge student impressions about digital technology, cadaver dissection and the Anatomage Table, voluntary, anonymous pre‐ and post‐course surveys were conducted in each course. Survey results indicated that 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.9–99.9%) of the OTD and PAS students viewed digital technology favorably; 51% previously used digital anatomy resources, but few had used the Table. 57.6% (CI=47.4–67.2%) chose the University of Texas Health San Antonio program because it offered cadaver dissection while 86.4% (CI=77.1–92.4%) were also eager to use digital anatomy resources as well. In the post‐course survey, the Anatomage Table was praised for image size and realism, availability of male and female specimens, high resolution regional anatomy, but some features (touch and rotation functions) were difficult to operate for some students. 65.9% (CI=55.5–75%) felt that the Table is a good learning tool to supplement cadaver dissection. 69.3% (CI=59.0–78.0%) felt the Table helped them better understand structures on the cadaver. Most felt that they benefited from the Table as a supplement to their cadaver dissection. A minority of students (12.5%, CI=7–21.2%) of preferred the Anatomage Table over cadaver dissection, while 73.9% (CI=63.8–82%) preferred the latter. These results provide insights highlighting the benefits and limitations of the Table especially when used in conjunction with cadaver dissection. The Table’s benefits may be even more apparent in programs where dissection of human cadavers is unavailable.