Simulation training for ceramic crown preparation in the dental setting using a virtual educational system

Liu, L.; Zhou, Ruyu; Yuan, Siyang; Sun, Zhipeng; Lu, Xiyi; Jin, Li; Chu, Fengqing; Walmsley, Anthony D.; Yan, Bin; Wang, Lin

doi:10.1111/eje.12485

Cited by 54 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3D VLRs, which provide rapid and feedback-based modi cations, offer an opportunity for repetitive practice [23]. Another advantage of VLRs is that students are able to observe and receive instant visual feedback based on prede ned practical tasks [28]. Critics have argued that this approach lacks expert guidance during the learning process, which plays an important role in forming the basic framework [29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy education programmes? A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model

Chen

Zhu

Cheng

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Realistic, portable, and scalable lectures, cadaveric models, 2D atlases and computer simulations are being combined more frequently for teaching anatomy, resulting in major increases in user satisfaction. However, while digital simulations may be more portable, interesting, or motivating than traditional teaching tools, whether they are superior in terms of student learning remain unclear. This paper presents a study in which the educational effectiveness of a virtual reality (VR) skull model is compared with that of cadaveric skulls and atlases. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of teaching with VR to those of teaching with traditional teaching methods by administering objective questionnaires and perception surveys. Methods: A mixed-methods study with 73 medical students was carried out with three different groups: the VR skull (N=25), cadaveric skull (N=25) and atlas (N=23) groups. Anatomical structures were taught through an introductory lecture and model-based learning. All students completed the pre- and post-intervention tests, which were composed of a theory test and an identification test. Results: The participants in all three groups had significantly higher total scores on the post-intervention test than on the pre-intervention test; the post-interview test score in the VR group was not statistically significantly higher than those of the other groups (VR: 30 [22-33.5], cadaver: 26 [20-31.5], atlas: 28[20-33]; p=0.571). The participants in the VR and cadaver groups provided more positive feedback on their learning models than the atlas group (VR: 26 [19-30], cadaver: 25 [19.5-29.5], atlas: 12 [9-20]; p<0.0001).Conclusions: The skull VLR was equally efficient with cadaver skull and atlas in teaching anatomy structures. Such a model can aid individuals in understanding complex anatomical structures with a higher level of motivation and tolerable adverse effects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy education programmes? A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model

Chen

Zhu

Cheng

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3D VLRs, which provide rapid and feedback-based modi cations, offer an opportunity for repetitive practice [23]. Another advantage of VLRs is that students can observe and receive instant visual feedback based on prede ned practical tasks [31]. Critics have argued that this approach lacks expert guidance during the learning process, which plays an important role in forming the basic framework [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy educational programmes?A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model

Chen

Zhu

Cheng

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Realistic, portable, and scalable lectures, cadaveric models, 2D atlases and computer simulations are being combined more frequently for teaching anatomy, which result in major increases in user satisfaction. However, although digital simulations may be more portable, interesting, or motivating than traditional teaching tools, whether they are superior in terms of student learning remain unclear. This paper presents a study in which the educational effectiveness of a virtual reality (VR) skull model is compared with that of cadaveric skulls and atlases. The aim of this study was to compare the results of teaching with VR to results of teaching with traditional teaching methods by administering objective questionnaires and perception surveys. Methods: A mixed-methods study with 73 medical students was conducted with three different groups, namely, the VR group (N=25), cadaver group (N=25) and atlas group (N=23). Anatomical structures were taught through an introductory lecture and model-based learning. All students completed the pre- and post-intervention tests, which comprised a theory test and an identification test. The theory test consisted of 18 multiple-choice questions, and the identification test consisted of 25 fill-in-the-blank questions. Results: The participants in all three groups had significantly higher total scores on the post-intervention test than on the pre-intervention test; the post-intervention test score in the VR group was not statistically significantly higher than the post-intervention test score of the other groups (VR: 30 [IQR: 22-33.5], cadaver: 26 [IQR: 20-31.5], atlas: 28[IQR: 20-33]; p>0.05). The participants in the VR and cadaver groups provided more positive feedback on their learning models than the atlas group (VR: 26 [IQR: 19-30], cadaver: 25 [IQR: 19.5-29.5], atlas: 12 [IQR: 9-20]; p<0.001). Conclusions: The skull virtual learning resource (VLR) was equally efficient as the cadaver skull and atlas in teaching anatomy structures. Such a model can aid individuals in understanding complex anatomical structures with a higher level of motivation and tolerable adverse effects.

show abstract

“…In all participants, Mann-Whitney U test revealed statistically significant differences in post-intervention total scores (male: 30.5 [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], female: 26 [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30], p=0.023), post-intervention identification scores (male: 15.5 [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] [12][13], female: 11 [7][8][9][10][11][12], p=0.036), as shown in Supplementary file 2. There were no statistically significant differences between male and female in cadaver group.…”

Section: Comparison Of Scores Between Subgroupsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The results of the responses in the three groups are compared in table 2. Overall, participants of VR group and cadaver group found their assigned learning models to be more enjoyable, more interesting, more authentic and more efficient for learning than those of atlas group and rated a higher likelihood of promoting the study material to standard anatomy education (total score: 26 [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] vs. 25 [19.5-29.5] vs. 12 [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20], p<0.001). It is noteworthy that participants evaluated VR models as a more efficient learning tool in the understanding of single cranial bones and adjacent structures than cadaver skulls and atlas.…”

Section: Response To Subjective Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomical education?: A randomized controlled trial on use of 3D skull model

Shi¹,

Zhu²,

Cheng³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Anatomy teaching is trending towards a mixture of lectures, cadaveric models, 2D atlas and computer simulations. This paper presents a study which compare the educational effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) skull model with that of cadaveric skulls and atlas. Methods A randomized controlled study with 73 medical students was carried out with three different groups: VR skull (N = 25), cadaveric skull (N = 25) and atlas (N = 23). Anatomical structures were taught through an introductory lecture and a model-based learning. All students completed the pre- and post-intervention test, which is composed of a theory test and an identification test. Results Participants in all three groups gained significantly higher total scores at post-intervention test than at pre-intervention test; the post-identification test score of VR group was non-statistically higher than the other group (VR 30 [22-33.5], cadaver 26 [20-31.5], atlas 28[20-33]). Participants in VR and cadaver group provided more positive feedbacks on their learning models (VR 26 [19-30] vs. 25 [19.5-29.5] vs. 12 [9-20], p<0.05). Conclusions VR skull model showed equivalent efficiency in teaching anatomy structure as cadaver skull and atlas. In addition, VR can assist participants in understanding complex anatomy structures with higher motivation and tolerable adverse effects.

show abstract

Simulation training for ceramic crown preparation in the dental setting using a virtual educational system

Cited by 54 publications

References 34 publications

Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy education programmes? A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model

Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy education programmes? A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model

Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy educational programmes?A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model

Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomical education?: A randomized controlled trial on use of 3D skull model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About