JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Dent Educ. 68(11): 1151-1162 2004
© 2004 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jasinevicius, T. R.
Right arrow Articles by Urbankova, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jasinevicius, T. R.
Right arrow Articles by Urbankova, A.

Educational Methodologies

An Evaluation of Two Dental Simulation Systems: Virtual Reality versus Contemporary Non-Computer-Assisted

T. Roma Jasinevicius, D.D.S., M.Ed.; Michael Landers, M.A., D.D.S.; Suchitra Nelson, M.S., Ph.D.; Alice Urbankova, D.D.S.

Dr. Jasinevicius is Assistant Professor, Department for the Practice of General Dentistry, Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine; Dr. Landers is Associate Professor, Oral Diagnosis and Radiology Department, Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine; Dr. Nelson is Assistant Professor, Community Dentistry Department, Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine; and Dr. Urbankova is Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. T. Roma Jasinevicius, Case Western Reserve University, School of Dental Medicine, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106; 216-368-2237 phone; 216-368-3204 fax; trj2{at}cwru.edu or trj2{at}case.edu.

Key words: virtual reality, preclinical teaching, simulation, virtual reality, computer-assisted teaching, psychomotor skills, fixed prosthodontics, operative dentistry, restorative dentistry

Submitted for publication 06/25/04; accepted 09/07/04

Contemporary dental simulation systems were developed to improve dental students’ transition from the preclinical laboratory to the clinic. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a virtual reality computer-assisted simulation system (VR) with a contemporary non-computer-assisted simulation system (CS). The objectives were to determine whether there were differences between the two systems in the quality of dental students’ preparations and the amount of faculty instruction time. Students who completed their first year of dental school and had no previous experience preparing teeth were group matched according to their performance in the first-year Dental Anatomy laboratory course and assigned to VR (n=15) or CS (n=13). In the summer, they spent two weeks (~3 hrs/day) executing amalgam and crown preparations on typodont teeth. Short presentations describing the preparations were given to both groups; however, preparation criteria were available on the computer for the VR group, while the CS group received handouts. Both groups could request feedback from faculty, although VR also obtained input from the computer. A log was kept of all student-faculty (S-F) interactions. Analysis of the data indicated significant differences between groups for the following variables: mean number of S-F interactions was sixteen for the VR group versus forty-two for the CS group; and mean time of S-F interactions was 1.9±2 minutes versus 4.0±3 minutes (p<0.001) for VR and CS, respectively. Faculty spent 44.3 hours "interacting" with twenty-eight students, averaging 0.5 hours per VR student and 2.8 hours per CS student. Thus, CS students received five times more instructional time from faculty than did VR students. There were no statistical differences in the quality of the preparations. While further study is needed to assess virtual reality technology, this decreased faculty time in instruction could impact the dental curriculum.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
N. Hawley, J. Dye, and M. Ditmyer
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Participants and Instructors Taking Part in a Dental School Simulation Course for Potential Dental Students
J Dent Educ., April 1, 2009; 73(4): 483 - 489.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
G. A. Kramer, J. E.N. Albino, S. C. Andrieu, W. D. Hendricson, L. Henson, B. D. Horn, L. M. Neumann, and S. K. Young
Dental Student Assessment Toolbox
J Dent Educ., January 1, 2009; 73(1): 12 - 35.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
M. A. Pyle and J. S. Goldberg
Engineering Curriculum Change at a Private Midwest School of Dental Medicine: A Faculty Innovation
J Dent Educ., March 1, 2008; 72(3): 288 - 298.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
A. D. Steinberg, P. G. Bashook, J. Drummond, S. Ashrafi, and M. Zefran
Assessment of Faculty Perception of Content Validity of PerioSim(C), a Haptic-3D Virtual Reality Dental Training Simulator
J Dent Educ., December 1, 2007; 71(12): 1574 - 1582.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
A. M. Iacopino
The Influence of "New Science" on Dental Education: Current Concepts, Trends, and Models for the Future
J Dent Educ., April 1, 2007; 71(4): 450 - 462.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
W. Hendricson, E. Eisenberg, G. Guest, P. Jones, L. Johnson, F. Panagakos, J. McDonald, and L. Cintron
What Do Dental Students Think About Mandatory Laptop Programs?
J Dent Educ., May 1, 2006; 70(5): 480 - 499.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Dental Education Association.