See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Education.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: This research aims to investigate the evaluation methods of teaching oral implant clinical courses and estimate the effectiveness of a virtual simulation platform.
Methods: Eighty second- and third-year undergraduates in Lanzhou University were recruited and randomized to either three experimental groups or one control group. The subjects undertook theoretical examinations to test their basic level of knowledge after training in similarly unified knowledge courses. Each student group then participated in an eight-hour operating training session. An operation test on pig mandible was conducted, followed by a second theoretical examination. The assessment consists of three distinct parts: a subjective operating score by a clinical senior teacher, an implant accuracy analysis in cone-beam computed tomography (angular, apical, and entrance deviation), and comparison of the two theoretical examinations. Finally, students completed a questionnaire gauging their understanding of the virtual simulation.
Results: There was no significant difference between the four groups in first theoretical examination (P > 0.05); the second theoretical scores of the V-J and J-V group (62.90 ± 3.70, 60.05 ± 2.73) were significantly higher than the first time (57.05 ± 3.92, P < 0.05), while no difference between the V (57.10 ± 3.66) and J (56.89 ± 2.67) groups was found. Thus, the combination of V-J was effective in improving students’ theoretical scores. The V-J and J-V groups had higher scores on operation (73.98 ± 4.58; 71.85 ± 4.67) and showed better implant precision.
Conclusion: Virtual simulation education, especially with a jaw simulation model, could improve students’ implantology achievements and training. Currently study found that the V-J group may performed better than the J-V group in oral implant teaching.
Keywords
implantology teaching, jaw simulation model, randomized controlled trial, virtual reality model
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Education.
Version 2
Posted 01 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 14 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 07 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 22 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 19 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 11 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Feb, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Feb, 2020
First submitted
On 24 Feb, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Education.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Education.
Version 2
Posted 01 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 14 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 07 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 22 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 21 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 21 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 19 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 11 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Feb, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Feb, 2020
First submitted
On 24 Feb, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Medical Education.
Background: This research aims to investigate the evaluation methods of teaching oral implant clinical courses and estimate the effectiveness of a virtual simulation platform.
Methods: Eighty second- and third-year undergraduates in Lanzhou University were recruited and randomized to either three experimental groups or one control group. The subjects undertook theoretical examinations to test their basic level of knowledge after training in similarly unified knowledge courses. Each student group then participated in an eight-hour operating training session. An operation test on pig mandible was conducted, followed by a second theoretical examination. The assessment consists of three distinct parts: a subjective operating score by a clinical senior teacher, an implant accuracy analysis in cone-beam computed tomography (angular, apical, and entrance deviation), and comparison of the two theoretical examinations. Finally, students completed a questionnaire gauging their understanding of the virtual simulation.
Results: There was no significant difference between the four groups in first theoretical examination (P > 0.05); the second theoretical scores of the V-J and J-V group (62.90 ± 3.70, 60.05 ± 2.73) were significantly higher than the first time (57.05 ± 3.92, P < 0.05), while no difference between the V (57.10 ± 3.66) and J (56.89 ± 2.67) groups was found. Thus, the combination of V-J was effective in improving students’ theoretical scores. The V-J and J-V groups had higher scores on operation (73.98 ± 4.58; 71.85 ± 4.67) and showed better implant precision.
Conclusion: Virtual simulation education, especially with a jaw simulation model, could improve students’ implantology achievements and training. Currently study found that the V-J group may performed better than the J-V group in oral implant teaching.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Loading...