MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411977405 · doi:10.2196/73956

Development and Evaluation of a Case-Based Serious Game for Diagnosis and Treatment Planning in Orthodontic Education: Quasi-Experimental Study

2025· article· en· W4411977405 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rochaya Chintavalakorn, Chayuth Chanwanichkulchai, Napat Buranasing, Napatsaporn Parivisutt, Naruchol Patchasri, Kawin Sipiyaruk

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintSerious gamePsychologyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineMultimediaWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Orthodontic education requires effective training in diagnosis and treatment planning, but traditional teaching methods may lack engagement and opportunities in offering a safe learning environment. Serious games are gaining momentum in dental education due to their positive educational impact in enhancing learner knowledge and motivation. However, their application in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning training remains unexplored. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a simulation-based serious game for training orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning in virtual patients (OrthoVirt), examining its impact on student knowledge and satisfaction. This study also explored whether prior gaming experience influenced learning outcomes. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted with 32 fourth-year dental students, who were requested to complete a preknowledge assessment, 3 simulated patients within OrthoVirt, a postknowledge assessment, and a satisfaction survey. Participants were categorized as gamers (n=16) or nongamers (n=16) based on self-reported weekly gaming time. The primary outcome was knowledge improvement, analyzed using 2-tailed paired t tests (Cohen dz). Group comparisons were conducted using 2-tailed independent t tests (Cohen d). User satisfaction was measured using a validated questionnaire based on the technology acceptance model. A stricter significance threshold (P<.01) and effect size metrics (Cohen d and Cohen dz) were used to account for the small sample size, multiple comparisons, and exploratory nature of the study. Results: Both gamer and nongamer groups showed significant knowledge improvement after using OrthoVirt (mean score increased from 10.75 (SD 2.75) to 14.75 (SD 1.81) out of 20; P<.001). The mean scores of the gamer group increased from 10.31 (SD 3.07) to 15.19 (SD 1.83) while those of the nongamer group rose from 11.19 (SD 2.40) to 14.31 (SD 1.74). No statistically significant differences were found between groups in pre- and postknowledge assessments as well as improvement scores (P>.01), suggesting that the educational benefit was consistent regardless of gaming background. Participants from both groups rated OrthoVirt positively, particularly for "perceived ease of use." However, "perceived enjoyment" was rated slightly lower than other aspects, with nongamers scoring it 3.60 (SD 0.81) and gamers 3.45 (SD 0.73) out of 5, indicating a potential area for design enhancement. Overall satisfaction ratings were similar between the 2 groups (P>.01). Conclusions: OrthoVirt demonstrated potential as a supplementary tool for diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontic education, with statistically significant improvements observed in learner knowledge. While feedback was generally positive, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the quasi-experimental design and small sample size. Future development should focus on improving user enjoyment and engagement through entertaining design elements. Further research should explore how OrthoVirt can be integrated as a case discussion tool alongside lectures, with the potential to enhance learning not only in orthodontic education but also across other areas of dental training.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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