Several included studies found haptic VR training equivalent rather than superior to conventional dental training¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-31 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Vincent et al. found no significant differences between haptic simulator (VirtEasy) and conventional practice on plastic teeth in restorative dentistry training. → Ruslin Muhammad 2026 q2 i? Dwisaptarini et al. concluded VR simulator training had equivalent effects in improving visuo-tactile performance. → Ruslin Muhammad 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Ruslin Muhammad 2026¶

Ruslin Muhammad, Sjamsudin Endang, Hanafiah Olivia Avriyanti, Stevanie Carolina, Kurniawan Sri Hastuti, Anshar Muh, Boffano Paolo, Forouzanfar Tymour, Sukotjo Cortino. (2026). Exploring the impact of immersive reality for enhancing clinical training in dental education: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09739-x

q2 · i? · review · r2

In the review's procedural-time and errors synthesis, the Vincent et al. study is reported as "finding no significant differences compared to conventional practice on plastic teeth (Kavo)". Equivalence was not tested beyond this non-significant result; no effect size is printed.

"Vincent et al. showed the haptic simulator VirtEasy’s effectiveness in restorative dentistry training, finding no significant differences compared to conventional practice on plastic teeth (Kavo) [32]."

Ruslin Muhammad 2026 (2)¶

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports Dwisaptarini et al.'s RCT of minimal invasive caries removal training among sixth-year students as "concluding VR simulator training equivalently improved visuo-tactile performance" relative to conventional extracted teeth. No effect size is printed.

"Dwisaptarini et al. studied minimal invasive caries removal training among sixth-year students, concluding VR simulator training equivalently improved visuo-tactile performance [33]."

Discussion¶

Virtual haptic drilling training achieved outcomes similar to conventional practice in less time in restorative dentistry — related
No significant differences between VR-based and conventional training in operational understanding, technical skills, or system usability — a broader claim this one bears on
Review syntheses: VR/AR most often improved academic achievement and motivation, but sometimes performed no better than conventional technologies — a broader claim this one bears on
Immersive technologies such as virtual reality should reinforce, not substitute, the original educational action — related
Immersive reality training produced higher knowledge and skill scores than conventional training in dental studies — reports the opposite
Haptic virtual reality simulation reduces procedural time for pulpotomy training compared with conventional simulators — related
Improvements in objective knowledge outcomes (Kirkpatrick Level 2) from technology-enhanced learning were inconsistent across neuroanatomy interventions — a broader claim this one bears on
Qualitative analysis found radiation became perceptible in VR for all participants, while all reported operability differences favoring conventional training — related
Immersive VR-haptic and ITS modalities are more often associated with objective psychomotor and cognitive gains, while generative AI platforms are more often associated with affective outcomes — reports the opposite
For lower-stakes basic skills, AR shows noninferiority rather than superiority over traditional instruction — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Distance simulation of technical skills achieves skill outcomes comparable to traditional on-site training in most comparative studies — a broader claim this one bears on
VR tools enhance acquisition and retention of clinical and procedural skills but face barriers including cybersickness, limited tactile feedback and variable long-term skill transfer — related
VR-enhanced basic robotic skills training sometimes required more training repetitions than conventional training to reach equivalent proficiency — related
AR/VR training shows equal or superior outcomes versus conventional training in dental and OMFS education — related
Haptic simulator trials more frequently show superior accuracy outcomes when force-feedback and structured guidance are included — reports the opposite
Hybrid sequences combining VR with conventional practice yielded the most favorable outcomes in one trial — related
Active methodologies show no definitive superiority over traditional teaching in undergraduate dentistry — a broader claim this one bears on
VR training's effect on OSATS-assisted skill acquisition shows conflicting evidence — related
VR simulation training improves orthopaedic trainees' technical proficiency and shortens operative times — reports the opposite
Simulation with patient-specific 3D-printed teeth improved crown preparation quality versus traditional patient care — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-31`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.