C Llena1, S Folguera1, L Forner1, F J Rodríguez-Lozano2. 1. Departament of Stomatology, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of augmented reality (AR) in the gaining of knowledge and skills amongst dental students in the design of cavity preparations and analyse their degree of satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: AR cavity models were prepared for use with computers and mobile devices. Forty-one students were divided into two groups (traditional teaching methods vs AR). Questionnaires were designed to evaluate knowledge and skills, with the administration of a satisfaction questionnaire for those using AR. The degree of compliance with the standards in cavity design was assessed. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare knowledge and skills between the two groups, and the Wilcoxon test was applied to compare intragroup differences. The chi-square test in turn was used to compare the qualitative parameters of the cavity designs between the groups. Statistical significance was considered for P<.05 in all cases. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in level of knowledge before, immediately after or 6 months after teaching between the two groups (P>.05). Although the results corresponding to most of the studied skills parameters were better in the experimental group, significant differences (P<.05) were only founded for cavity depth and extent for Class I and divergence of the buccal and lingual walls for the Class II. The experience was rated as favourable or very favourable by 100% of the participants. The students showed preference for computers (60%) vs mobile devices (10%). CONCLUSIONS: The AR techniques favoured the gaining of knowledge and skills and were regarded as a useful tool by the students.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of augmented reality (AR) in the gaining of knowledge and skills amongst dental students in the design of cavity preparations and analyse their degree of satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: AR cavity models were prepared for use with computers and mobile devices. Forty-one students were divided into two groups (traditional teaching methods vs AR). Questionnaires were designed to evaluate knowledge and skills, with the administration of a satisfaction questionnaire for those using AR. The degree of compliance with the standards in cavity design was assessed. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare knowledge and skills between the two groups, and the Wilcoxon test was applied to compare intragroup differences. The chi-square test in turn was used to compare the qualitative parameters of the cavity designs between the groups. Statistical significance was considered for P<.05 in all cases. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in level of knowledge before, immediately after or 6 months after teaching between the two groups (P>.05). Although the results corresponding to most of the studied skills parameters were better in the experimental group, significant differences (P<.05) were only founded for cavity depth and extent for Class I and divergence of the buccal and lingual walls for the Class II. The experience was rated as favourable or very favourable by 100% of the participants. The students showed preference for computers (60%) vs mobile devices (10%). CONCLUSIONS: The AR techniques favoured the gaining of knowledge and skills and were regarded as a useful tool by the students.