Effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning to improve periodontics educational outcomes: A systematic review

Abstract

Objectives Technology‐enhanced learning (TEL) has been suggested as a suitable learner‐centered pedagogical approach in dental education. However, the results of TEL effectiveness in periodontics education are controversial. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TEL to improve educational outcomes in the periodontics field compared to traditional learning methods. Methods The search comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies that were related to periodontics education from the following databases: MedLine, PsycINFO, Eric, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessed risk of bias. Kirkpatrick's 4‐level evaluation model was used to evaluate educational outcomes. Results From 1642 studies, after applying inclusion criteria, 7 studies remained for analysis. On level 1 (Reaction), undergraduate dental students reported positive attitudes related to TEL. On level 2 (Learning), 3 studies found that TEL improved knowledge gain compared to traditional learning methods. Three other studies did not show any difference between TEL and conventional learning methods, and one found that traditional learning methods presented superior results. On level 3 (Behavior), 1 study found that TEL application improved students’ performance. On level 4 (Results), 5 studies suggested that the implementation of TEL would improve educational outcomes in periodontics education if combined with traditional learning methods. Conclusion The findings showed that the exclusive use of TEL does not significantly improve periodontics educational outcomes when compared to traditional learning methods. However, the combination of TEL and traditional learning methods can be the key to enhancing periodontics education.

Effectiveness of Virtual Reality and Interactive Simulators on Dental Education Outcomes: Systematic Review

“…Restorative dental tasks might offer the feasibility of customization of the required assignments, whereas other dental disciplines may require higher customization and knowledge to fulfill specific field's requirements. 90 Second, this review showed that HT was the most used technology, especially in tasks that require drilling and tooth preparations, which agree with Towers et al 6 HT offers an additional dimension to VR through the sense of touch and force feedback (FFB) of the different tooth-layered structure and bone. Thus, HT proved efficient in training junior dental students the hand-eye coordination and spatial reasoning skills.…”

“…Restorative dental tasks might offer the feasibility of customization of the required assignments, whereas other dental disciplines may require higher customization and knowledge to fulfill specific field’s requirements. 90 …”

Digital Education for Health Professionals: An Evidence Map, Conceptual Framework, and Research Agenda

“…We identified 318 discrete research questions posed in these 77 articles, from which we distilled a final list of 61 (19.2%) distinct questions covering 14 of the 16 subdomains of the above framework (Table 2; Multimedia Appendix 4 [11][12][13][14][15][16]32,34,[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107]). Research questions that spanned multiple subdomains were assigned by investigator consensus to the most relevant single subdomain.…”

“…[42,71,98] Education (modality) What is the effectiveness of digital education (mixed or single modality) compared with nondigital education to deliver health professions education? [54,69,99,100] Education (modality) Can digital education complement (ie, blended) or substitute traditional education for health professionals? [46] Education (modality) Does digital simulation-based psychomotor skills training provide any benefit to the medical trainee?…”

“…The included frameworks, while providing an overview of digital education, often had additional objectives such as exploring the role of specific stakeholders (eg, the private sector or the ministries), identifying barriers to adoption, or analyzing a particular digital education aspect, setting, or configuration [33,[35][36][37][113][114][115][116][117]. Our framework complements other frameworks by pulling together domains previously presented only in isolation and by adding novel subdomains such as the impact of training levels, the role of regulations and accreditations, and the importance of physical infrastructure (Multimedia Appendix 4 [11][12][13][14][15][16]32,34,[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107]).…”