In recent years, virtual reality and interactive digital simulations have been used in dental education to train dental students before interacting with real patients. Scientific evidence presented the application of virtual technology in dental education and some recent publications suggested that virtual and haptic technologies may have positive effects on dental education outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether virtual technologies have positive effects on dental education outcomes and to explore the attitudes of dental students and educators toward these technologies. A thorough search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE (via EBSCO), The Cochrane Library (via Wiley), Web of Science Core Collection (via Thomson Reuters), and Dentistry and Oral Science source (via EBSCO) using the keywords (student, dental) AND (education, dental) AND (virtual reality) OR (augmented reality) OR (haptics) OR (simulation) AND (dentistry) OR (dental medicine). The quality of the reported information was assessed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement for systematic reviews. A total of 73 publications were considered for this review. Fifty-two of the selected studies showed significant improvement in educational outcomes and virtual technologies were positively perceived by all the participants. Within the limitations of this review, virtual technology appears to improve education outcomes in dental students. Further studies with larger samples and longer term clinical trials are needed to substantiate this potential positive impact of various virtual technologies on dental education outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

This study aimed to assess attitude and knowledge of sixth year dental students and interns towards panorama and CBCT, and to compare responses relative to level of study and gender. Web-based questionnaire comprising of four sections was used. First, participants provided demographic information. Second, ten close ended questions about panoramic radiography in personal practice and general information of CBCT. Third, identifying marked anatomical structures in digital panorama. Last, participants were asked to choose type of view and to name marked anatomical structure in CBCT images. Results showed that majority of participants used panorama in routine work, most did not think panorama was suitable for implant planning. 58.3% students and 50% interns did not use CBCT before. Both levels obtained knowledge on CBCT in faculty lessons, followed by internet. Future applications of CBCT reported highest in maxillofacial surgery for sixth year, and all fields of dentistry in interns. Most were willing to receive extended education in CBCT. High Correct identification of landmarks in panorama, while average correct identification of cross sections and marked landmarks in CBCT. It is concluded that the moderate students' knowledge of CBCT suggest that more training should be gained through continuing education.