Table 5. Characteristics of the selected studies in implantology.
S. no | Author, Year, Country | VR system | Participants | Study design | Assessment tool | Tested outcome | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abbreviations: CST, cross sectional trial; DS, dental students; RCT, randomized controlled trial; VR, virtual reality. | |||||||
1 | Qi et al 2013 China 72 | Active and passive controlling 3D virtual webpages | (95) 1st and 2nd year DS |
RCT | Post-training assessment of knowledge on dental implant restoration | Relative quality of information acquisition | Passive 3D control had significant high scores, a significant correlation existed between the scores on a mental rotations test and the subjects’ performance on the post-test |
2 | Joseph et al 2014, France 68 | Virteasy, haptic dental simulator (implant surgery) | (40) 3rd year DS, (20) Experienced practitioners |
RCT | Implant drilling in the 1st molar region in a custom-made mandibular resin model | Accuracy of implant placement and drilling times | The results of the simulator group were significantly close to the experienced operators |
3 | Golob Deeb et al 2019, United States 69 | Dynamic guidance system software for virtual implant placement |
(14) Predoctoral students | CST | Five implant placements (3 maxillary or 4 mandibular) positions | Surgical time horizontal, vertical, and angulation discrepancies | Significant reduction in time from 1st to 2nd trial, then plateaued. 3D angulation and 2D vertical apex deviation improved with each attempt, but changes in lateral 2D and overall 3D apex deviations were not significant |
4 | Zhang et al 2020, China 70 | VR simulation platform | (166) 2 nd and 3 rd year DS | RCT | Pre- and post-theoretical test, subjective evaluation of operation procedures, implant accuracy in CBCT, and questionnaire | Procedural accuracy vs. jaw-bone simulation Degree of satisfaction |
VR combined with jawbone groups had significantly higher increase in scores and showed better implant precision in CBCT than the other groups. Students preferred the combined of jawbone and VR reality simulation |
5 | Zorzal et al 2021, Brazil 71 | IMMPLANT VR simulator uses smartphone and laptops | (16) dental postgraduates | CST | Place a virtual implant at a specific bone-loss area location within a subject-specific 3D model of a lower jaw | Participants feedback regarding benefits and limitations | VR system is easy to use and promotes greater spatial awareness of the 3D dental model and easy to learn but they reported difficulty selecting the predetermined implant position and inclination |