MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206003967 · doi:10.2196/30653

Mixed Reality and Haptic–Based Dental Simulator for Tooth Preparation: Research, Development, and Preliminary Evaluation

2021· article· en· W3206003967 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaning Li, Hongqiang Ye, Siyu Wu, Xiaohan Zhao, Yunsong Liu, Longwei Lv, Ping Zhang, Xiao Zhang, Yongsheng Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPeking University
KeywordsVirtual realityHaptic technologySimulationDental educationComputer scienceDentistryMedicineHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) dental simulators are currently used in preclinical skills training. However, with the development of extended reality technologies, the use of mixed reality (MR) has shown significant advantages over VR. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the research and development of a newly developed MR and haptic-based dental simulator for tooth preparation and to conduct a preliminary evaluation of its face validity. METHODS: A prototype of the MR dental simulator for tooth preparation was developed by integrating a head-mounted display (HMD), special force feedback handles, a foot pedal, computer hardware, and software program. We recruited 34 participants and divided them into the Novice group (n=17) and Skilled group (n=17) based on their clinical experience. All participants prepared a maxillary right central incisor for an all-ceramic crown in the dental simulator, completed a questionnaire afterward about their simulation experience, and evaluated hardware and software aspects of the dental simulator. RESULTS: Of the participants, 74% (25/34) were satisfied with the overall experience of using the Unidental MR Simulator. Approximately 90% (31/34, 91%) agreed that it could stimulate their interest in learning, and 82% (28/34) were willing to use it for skills training in the future. Differences between the 2 study groups in their experience with the HMD (resolution: P=.95; wearing comfort: P=.10), dental instruments (P=.95), force feedback of the tooth (P=.08), simulation of the tooth preparation process (P=.79), overall experience with the simulation (P=.47), and attitude toward the simulator (improves skills: P=.47; suitable for learning: P=.36; willing to use: P=.89; inspiring for learning: P=.63) were not significant. The Novice group was more satisfied with the simulator's ease of use (P=.04). There were significant positive correlations between the overall experience with the simulation and the HMD's resolution (P=.03) and simulation of the preparation process (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed Unidental MR Simulator for tooth preparation has good face validity. It can achieve a higher degree of resemblance to the real clinical treatment environment by improving the positional adjustment of the simulated patients, for a better training experience in dental skills.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicDental Research and COVID-19French-language works237,207