Effectiveness and Student Perceptions of Haptic Virtual Reality Simulation Training as an Instructional Tool in Pre-Clinical Paediatric Dentistry: A Pilot Pedagogical Study

Abstract

Simulation training for invasive dental procedures is a core component of the pre-clinical dental curriculum. Besides conventional mannequin-based simulators, dental schools are now incorporating haptic virtual reality simulation (HVRS) devices to facilitate the transition of students from the simulated dental learning environment to the clinical settings. This study aimed to assess student performance and perceptions of HVRS training as a pedagogical tool in pre-clinical paediatric dentistry. After practicing the primary molar pulpotomy procedure on plastic teeth, participants were randomized into test and control groups. Test group students performed the same procedure on a HVRS device, namely the SIMtoCARE Dente®. Subsequently, both the test and control group students attended another conventional pulpotomy simulation session where the quality of their access outline and pulp chamber deroofing steps were evaluated on plastic teeth. After the control group students also experienced the HVRS, all study participants completed a perception questionnaire on their experience. No significant differences were found between the study and control group students for the quantitative parameters assessed. Although the students regarded HVRS to be a useful adjunct to support their pre-clinical training, an overwhelming majority of the students did not consider HVRS to be a replacement for conventional pre-clinical simulation training.

Findings Favor Haptics Feedback in Virtual Simulation Surgical Education: An Updated Systematic and Scoping Review

“…The remaining studies utilized quasi-experimental methodologies (7 studies, 13.73%). Notably, our review found 17 RCTs 38,41,49,50,54,55,58,65,67–69,77,78,81–84 that were not included in the previous review, 11 of which were published before 2019 38,41,49,50,54,55,58,65,67–69 and the rest being novel studies. 77,78,81–84…”

“…Notably, our review found 17 RCTs 38,41,49,50,54,55,58,65,[67][68][69]77,78,[81][82][83][84] that were not included in the previous review, 11 of which were published before 2019 38,41,49,50,54,55,58,65,[67][68][69] and the rest being novel studies. 77,78,[81][82][83][84] The most common population sampled were medical residents (14 studies), followed by novices (9 studies), physicians (8 studies), and medical students (7 studies). A minority of studies collected data from dentistry students (3 studies), and patients (2 studies).…”

“…The characteristics of haptics (eg, the sense that devices or simulators provided) were not elaborated on in twenty-four studies (n = 24). Among the studies that described these details, sense of collision or touch (n = 12), 39,40,51,52,[60][61][62]70,71,75,77,85 drilling (n = 7), 49,58,59,64,78,82,83 and force changes due to interactions with different tissue types (eg, skin, adipose tissue, vessels, n = 4) 50,68,69,74 were the replicated haptic interactions. In two studies (n = 2), 47,65 haptics were used to provide guidance to participants to operate the haptic robot within a predefined path.…”

“…Following abstract and full-text screening, 51 were included for data extraction and synthesis (Figure 1). 20,35–84…”

“…34 studies had results that, overall, favored the haptic condition over non-haptic while the summative results of only 3 studies 59,66,86 favored the non-haptic condition. The remaining studies either showed the two conditions to be equal/similar (n = 11) 39,42,44,45,50,54,67,74,77,80,83 or had mixed results (n = 3) 52,68,81 such that some assessed variables favored the haptic condition while others favored non-haptics. The important results from included studies are summarized in Table 1 while a more nuanced picture of each task and the condition it favored is listed in Table 3.…”