Haptic versus conventional training in undergraduate implantology education: a randomized controlled pilot study.

INTRODUCTION

Haptic virtual reality simulation is increasingly used in dental education as a complementary tool for preclinical training. In oral implantology, where implant placement requires precise control of depth, angulation, and spatial positioning, haptic simulation may help students acquire technical skills in a safe and repeatable environment. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of haptic simulation in undergraduate implantology training by comparing implant placement accuracy, procedural time, student satisfaction, motivation, and self-perceived improvement across different training modalities and sequences.

METHODS

A randomized, controlled, parallel-group pilot study was conducted with 68 third-year dental students enrolled in an Oral Surgery course. Participants were randomly allocated into four groups: Phantom Group (PG), conventional jaw-model training only; Simulator Group (SG), haptic simulation only; Mixed Group 1 (MG1), haptic simulation followed by conventional training; and Mixed Group 2 (MG2), conventional training followed by haptic simulation. Implant placement accuracy was assessed through coronal, apical, vertical, and angular deviations. Drilling time and total procedure time were recorded. Satisfaction, motivation, and self-perceived improvement after training were evaluated using five-point Likert-scale questionnaires. Non-parametric tests were used for inferential analyses, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

No statistically significant between-group differences were detected in coronal, apical, vertical, or angular deviations within either training modality. However, MG1 showed numerically lower coronal, apical, and angular deviations, particularly during conventional jaw-model training. No statistically significant between-group differences were detected in procedural times; however, MG1 showed the shortest drilling times in both modalities. Satisfaction and motivation were high across all groups. Statistically significant between-group differences were observed in selected items related to perceived realism and self-perceived improvement after training; however, these isolated findings should be considered exploratory given the multiple comparisons performed. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Haptic simulation was a well-accepted complementary tool for undergraduate implantology education. Although objective accuracy and procedural-time outcomes did not differ significantly between groups, exploratory differences in selected student-reported outcomes warrant further investigation of potential sequence-related effects. Larger studies with longer training exposure are needed to determine its effect on practical skill acquisition.