L M Al-Saud1,2,3, F Mushtaq2, M J Allsop4, P C Culmer5, I Mirghani1,2, E Yates6, A Keeling1, M A Mon-Williams2, M Manogue1. 1. School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK. 2. School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 3. College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4. Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 5. School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 6. School of Dentistry, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effect of qualitatively different types of pedagogical feedback (FB) on the training, transfer and retention of basic manual dexterity dental skills using a virtual reality (VR) haptic dental simulator. METHODS:Sixty-three participants (M = 22.7 years; SD = 3.4 years), with no previous dental training, were randomly allocated to one of three groups (n = 21 each). Group 1 received device-only feedback during the training phase, that is the visual display of the simulator (DFB); Group 2 received verbal feedback from a qualified dental instructor (IFB); and Group 3 received a combination of instructor and device feedback (IDFB). Participants completed four tasks during which feedback was given according to group allocation as well as two skills transfer tests. Skill retention was examined immediately after training, at 1 week and at 1 month post-test. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in overall performance (P < 0.001) and error (P = 0.006). Post hoc comparisons revealed the IDFB group produced substantially better performance and fewer errors in comparison with DFB and IFB training. This difference translated to improved performance in skill retention and generalisation of knowledge to novel tasks. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the acquisition and retention of basic dental motor skills in novice trainees is best optimised through a combination of instructor and visual display (VR)-driven feedback. The results have implications for the utility and implementation of VR haptic technology in dental education.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To investigate the effect of qualitatively different types of pedagogical feedback (FB) on the training, transfer and retention of basic manual dexterity dental skills using a virtual reality (VR) haptic dental simulator. METHODS: Sixty-three participants (M = 22.7 years; SD = 3.4 years), with no previous dental training, were randomly allocated to one of three groups (n = 21 each). Group 1 received device-only feedback during the training phase, that is the visual display of the simulator (DFB); Group 2 received verbal feedback from a qualified dental instructor (IFB); and Group 3 received a combination of instructor and device feedback (IDFB). Participants completed four tasks during which feedback was given according to group allocation as well as two skills transfer tests. Skill retention was examined immediately after training, at 1 week and at 1 month post-test. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in overall performance (P < 0.001) and error (P = 0.006). Post hoc comparisons revealed the IDFB group produced substantially better performance and fewer errors in comparison with DFB and IFB training. This difference translated to improved performance in skill retention and generalisation of knowledge to novel tasks. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the acquisition and retention of basic dental motor skills in novice trainees is best optimised through a combination of instructor and visual display (VR)-driven feedback. The results have implications for the utility and implementation of VR haptic technology in dental education.
Authors: Loulwa M Al-Saud; Faisal Mushtaq; Richard P Mann; Isra'a Mirghani; Ahmed Balkhoyor; Richard Harris; Cecilie Osnes; Andrew Keeling; Mark A Mon-Williams; Michael Manogue Journal: BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn Date: 2020-09-03
Authors: F Mushtaq; R C Baraas; L M Al-Saud; I Mirghani; C van der Zee; E Yates; A Keeling; M A Mon-Williams; M Manogue Journal: Br Dent J Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 1.626
Authors: Loulwa M Al-Saud; Faisal Mushtaq; Isra'a Mirghani; Ahmed Balkhoyor; Andrew Keeling; Michael Manogue; Mark A Mon-Williams Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Paras Ahmad; Mohammad Khursheed Alam; Ali Aldajani; Abdulmajeed Alahmari; Amal Alanazi; Martin Stoddart; Mohammed G Sghaireen Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 3.576