Evaluation of a Virtual Reality Simulation System for Porcelain Fused to Metal Crown Preparation at Tokyo Medical and Dental University

Abstract

The use of virtual reality simulation (VRS) is a new teaching modality in dentistry, and there is scope for further research evaluating its use under different educational programs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how VRS with or without instructor feedback inluenced students' learning and skills related to porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crown preparation. In this study, forty-three dental students in their ifth year of study at Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan, were randomly divided into three groups: the irst group used VRS (DentSim) with the instructor's feedback (DSF) (n=15), the second group used VRS without the instructor's feedback (DS) (n=15), and the third group neither used features of VRS (NDS) (n=13) nor received the instructor's feedback. All the students performed PFM crown preparation under the same setup once a week for four weeks. Total scores, preparation time, and twelve evaluation items were compared among the three groups and four experiments. The total scores of students in the DSF and DS groups were signiicantly higher than those in the NDS group. The presence of the instructor did not result in signiicant difference when VRS was used for training, while it shortened the preparation time at early stages. The results of this study suggested that the use of the VRS system improved student training for PFM crown preparation.

Comparing feedback from faculty interactions and virtual assessment software in the development of psychomotor skills in preclinical fixed prosthodontics

“…Similarly, a study by Yasukawa () showed that students who interacted solely with VRS for immediate feedback received a significantly lower grade on their practical exams compared with those who interacted with faculty and VRS. In contrast, Kikuchi, Ikeda, and Araki () found that when students used VRS to learn to prepare a metal ceramic crown, interactions with faculty had no effect on student performance.…”

Effectiveness of technology-enhanced teaching and assessment methods of undergraduate preclinical dental skills: a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials

“…Nine studies (47.4%) took place in Europe [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26], ve studies (26.3%) took place in North America [7,[27][28][29][30], three studies (15.8%) were conducted in Asia [31][32][33], one study (5.2%) was conducted in Oceania [34], and one study (5.2%) did not mention the country setting [35]. One study (5.2%) had a sample size of 9 [7], three studies (15.8%) had a sample size between 11 and 30 [22,28,34], 11 studies (57.9%) had a sample size between 31 and 50 [18-21, 23-26, 31, 33, 35], two studies (10.5%) had a sample size between 51 and 70 [29,32], and two studies (10.5%) had a sample size between 71 and 90 students [27,30]. Seven studies (36.8%) assessed second year undergraduate dental students [7,21,22,27,29,30,33], four (21%) assessed rst year [23][24][25]28], four (21%) assessed fourth year [20,32,34,35], two (10.5%) assessed third year …”

“…One study (5.2%) had a sample size of 9 [7], three studies (15.8%) had a sample size between 11 and 30 [22,28,34], 11 studies (57.9%) had a sample size between 31 and 50 [18-21, 23-26, 31, 33, 35], two studies (10.5%) had a sample size between 51 and 70 [29,32], and two studies (10.5%) had a sample size between 71 and 90 students [27,30]. Seven studies (36.8%) assessed second year undergraduate dental students [7,21,22,27,29,30,33], four (21%) assessed rst year [23][24][25]28], four (21%) assessed fourth year [20,32,34,35], two (10.5%) assessed third year [18,26], one (5.2%) assessed fth year [31], and one (5.2%) assessed a mixture of fourth and fth year [19]. Most of these studies (57.9%) assessed the student's ability in operative dentistry [18, 20-26, 29, 30, 33].…”

“…Most of these studies (57.9%) assessed the student's ability in operative dentistry [18, 20-26, 29, 30, 33]. Five (26.3%) were about prosthodontics [7,27,31,32,34], one (5.2%) was a mixture of both operative dentistry and prosthodontics [28], one (5.2%) about endodontics [35], and one (5.2%) about oral surgery [19]. In total, there were four main types of technology-assessments that were used in all the 19 studies.…”

“…In total, there were four main types of technology-assessments that were used in all the 19 studies. Ten studies (52.6%) used virtual reality [21-25, 28-31, 33], six studies (31.5%) used a digital scanner [7,20,26,27,32,34], two (10.5%) used augmented reality [18,19], and one (5.2%) used haptic technology [35].…”