Table 1 Summary of the Data from the Studies Included in this Review
Author, Year | Sample size | Setting | Year of study | Discipline | Technology-enhanced assessment method | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LeBlanc et al., 2003 [16] | 68 | Columbia University School of Oral and Dental Surgery, United States | Second Year | Operative Dentistry | DentSim Virtual Reality System | There is no significant difference in overall final performance scores between the groups, but the experimental group improved significantly more than the control group. |
Quinn et al., 2003 [17] | 32 | Dublin Dental School, Republic of Ireland | Second Year | Operative Dentistry | Unspecified Virtual Reality Unit | No significant differences between all three groups in cavity quality. |
Quinn et al., 2003 [18] | 22 | Dublin Dental School, Republic of Ireland | Second Year | Operative Dentistry | Unspecified Virtual Reality Unit | There is no significant benefit in using Virtual Reality-based training for preclinical operative training. |
Jasinevicius et al., 2004 [19] | 28 | Case Western Reserve University, United States | First Year | Operative and Prosthodontic Dentistry | DentSim Virtual Reality System | No significant difference in preparation quality or number of preparations made between both the intervention and control groups. |
Wierinck et al., 2005 [20] | 42 | Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium | First Year | Operative Dentistry | DentSim Virtual Reality System | One experimental group outperformed the control group during the retention test, but overall, the DentSim does not significantly impact manual skill learning in dental students. |
Wierinck et al., 2006 [21] | 36 | Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium | First Year | Operative Dentistry | DentSim Virtual Reality System | Performance and learning of a cavity preparation task using a simulation unit is not dependent on the frequency of feedback. The simulation system is as effective for training for manual dexterity. |
Wierinck et al., 2006 [22] | 36 | Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium | First Year | Operative Dentistry | DentSim Virtual Reality System | Presence of VR feedback enhances acquisition and retention of cavity preparation tasks. VR feedback is more beneficial for long-term retention of skill acquisition. |
Urbankova, 2010 [23] | 79 | Columbia University College of Dental Medicine, United States | Second Year | Operative Dentistry | DentSim Virtual Reality System | The experiment group scored significantly higher in the earlier tests, but by the end of the trial, despite the experimental group scoring higher, it was not significant. |
Suebnukarn et al., 2011 [24] | 32 | Not mentioned | Fourth Year | Endodontic Dentistry | Haptic Virtual Reality Simulator training with micro-CT tooth models | No significant difference in error score reduction or task completion time but significant difference in tooth mass removed. |
Kikuchi et al., 2013 [25] | 45 | Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan | Fifth Year | Prosthodontics | DentSim Virtual Reality System | The intervention groups had a significantly higher total score when compared to the control group. Preparation time was significantly shorter in the control group. |
Gratton et al., 2016 [26] | 80 | University of Iowa, United States | Second Year | Prosthodontics | E4D Compare software and CEREC prepCheck | There was no significant difference among all groups in regards to technical score and self-evaluation scores. |
Tiu et al., 2016 [27] | 30 | University of Otago, New Zealand | Fourth Year | Prosthodontics | Preppr scanner software | The experimental group outperformed the other groups in overall acceptable preparations |
Llena et al., 2017 [28] | 43 | University of Valencia, Spain | Third Year | Operative Dentistry | Augmentaty Author 1.2 and Augment Viewer software, and Augment app for mobile device | The experimental group had significantly better class I preparations but there was no significant difference in class II preparation quality when compared to control group. |
Liu et al., 2018 [29] | 66 | School of Stomatology of Nanjing Medical University, China | Fourth Year | Prosthodontics | Real-time Dental Training and Evaluation System (RDTES) | The experimental group scored significantly higher compared to the control group. |
Nagy et al., 2018 [30] | 36 | Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary | Fourth Year | Operative Dentistry | KaVo Dental Teacher software | The deviations of mean shoulder width, approximal depth, and occlusal width was significantly smaller in the second preparations of the intervention group, while there was no significant difference in deviation between preparations in the control group. |
Sadid-Zadeh et al., 2018 [7] | 9 | University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, United States | Second Year | Prosthodontics | E4D Compare software | The E4D Compare software is as effective as conventional faculty supervision in regards to providing instant feedback on full coverage tooth preparations. |
Wolgin et al., 2018 [31] | 47 | Danube Private University, Austria | Third Year | Operative Dentistry | prepCheck (DentsplySirona) | There was no significant difference when using prepCheck and the conventional method of supervision. |
Mladenovic et al., 2019 [32] | 41 | University of Pristina, Serbia | Fourth and Fifth Years | Oral Surgery | Dental Simulator Mobile Application | There was no significant difference in anesthesia success between the two groups, but time to perform anesthesia was significantly higher in the control group. |
Murbay et al., 2020 [33] | 32 | The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong | Second Year | Operative Dentistry | Moog Simodont Dental trainer (VR-based system) | There was a significant improvement after exposure to the Moog Simodont dental trainer. |