A comparison of pre‐clinical instructional technologies: Natural teeth, 3D models, 3D printing, and augmented reality
Purpose/Objectives To assess student perceptions on learning dental anatomy using natural extracted teeth, 3D printed models, 3D virtual models, and augmented reality (AR) technology. Methods Eighty first‐year dental students enrolled in the dental anatomy course were instructed to examine four sta...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of dental education 2021-11, Vol.85 (11), p.1795-1801 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1801 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 1795 |
container_title | Journal of dental education |
container_volume | 85 |
creator | Mahrous, Ahmed Elgreatly, Amira Qian, Fang Schneider, Galen B. |
description | Purpose/Objectives
To assess student perceptions on learning dental anatomy using natural extracted teeth, 3D printed models, 3D virtual models, and augmented reality (AR) technology.
Methods
Eighty first‐year dental students enrolled in the dental anatomy course were instructed to examine four stations. The stations included four versions of a mandibular first molar: an extracted natural tooth, a 3D printed model, a 3D virtual model, and a model displayed on a novel AR device. After examining all stations, the students were asked to complete an electronic survey. Bivariate analysis was performed to determine whether students’ perceptions are related to their demographic characteristics and technological experience with computer use, 3D modeling, and video games.
Results
Seventy students completed the survey (87.5% response rate). Students rated natural teeth to have the highest educational value, the 3D printed tooth to be the most accessible, and the AR application to be the most interesting modality. Students who played little to no video games were more likely to rate AR as high educational value (48.8% vs. 10.3%; p |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jdd.12736 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2548417763</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2548417763</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3376-976042eecc50ea77acc0519998701b4ac0c2af32f7c9b749755c8de74697edaf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtOwzAQhi0EEqWw4AZegtQU5-mYXdXyVAUbWEeuM2ldOXawHVXdcQTOyEkwDVtW8_i_Gc38CF3GZBoTktxs63oaJzQtjtAoZimJaJnSYzQKWhKRNKWn6My5bShZliUjtJthYdqOW-mMxqbBnYXvzy-hpJaCKyy187YXXhodKg9io40yawnuFr9w39tDF_xmgtMFbk0Nyh3SzkrtpV5PMNc15v26Be2hxha4kn5_jk4arhxc_MUxer-_e5s_RsvXh6f5bBmJcGsRMVqQLAEQIifAKeVCkDxmjJWUxKuMCyIS3qRJQwVb0YzRPBdlDTQrGIU6KGN0NeztrPnowfmqlU6AUlyD6V2V5FmZxZQWaUCvB1RY45yFpgo_tNzuq5hUv-ZWwdzqYG5gbwZ2JxXs_wer58VimPgBMMF9KA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2548417763</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of pre‐clinical instructional technologies: Natural teeth, 3D models, 3D printing, and augmented reality</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Mahrous, Ahmed ; Elgreatly, Amira ; Qian, Fang ; Schneider, Galen B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mahrous, Ahmed ; Elgreatly, Amira ; Qian, Fang ; Schneider, Galen B.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose/Objectives
To assess student perceptions on learning dental anatomy using natural extracted teeth, 3D printed models, 3D virtual models, and augmented reality (AR) technology.
Methods
Eighty first‐year dental students enrolled in the dental anatomy course were instructed to examine four stations. The stations included four versions of a mandibular first molar: an extracted natural tooth, a 3D printed model, a 3D virtual model, and a model displayed on a novel AR device. After examining all stations, the students were asked to complete an electronic survey. Bivariate analysis was performed to determine whether students’ perceptions are related to their demographic characteristics and technological experience with computer use, 3D modeling, and video games.
Results
Seventy students completed the survey (87.5% response rate). Students rated natural teeth to have the highest educational value, the 3D printed tooth to be the most accessible, and the AR application to be the most interesting modality. Students who played little to no video games were more likely to rate AR as high educational value (48.8% vs. 10.3%; p < 0.001), while students with little 3D modeling experience were more likely to rate high accessibility of the 3D Model (78.1% vs. 48.3%; p < 0.001). No statistically significant associations between the perceptions and students’ demographic characteristics or use of computer were noted.
Conclusion
The natural extracted tooth was rated highest in educational value, while the 3D printed model was rated easiest to use, and the AR model was the most interesting to the students.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0337</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-7837</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jdd.12736</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>3D models ; 3D printing ; augmented reality ; Dentistry ; instructional technology ; virtual reality</subject><ispartof>Journal of dental education, 2021-11, Vol.85 (11), p.1795-1801</ispartof><rights>2021 American Dental Education Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3376-976042eecc50ea77acc0519998701b4ac0c2af32f7c9b749755c8de74697edaf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3376-976042eecc50ea77acc0519998701b4ac0c2af32f7c9b749755c8de74697edaf3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4094-3313 ; 0000-0001-5436-8247</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjdd.12736$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjdd.12736$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mahrous, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elgreatly, Amira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qian, Fang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Galen B.</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of pre‐clinical instructional technologies: Natural teeth, 3D models, 3D printing, and augmented reality</title><title>Journal of dental education</title><description>Purpose/Objectives
To assess student perceptions on learning dental anatomy using natural extracted teeth, 3D printed models, 3D virtual models, and augmented reality (AR) technology.
Methods
Eighty first‐year dental students enrolled in the dental anatomy course were instructed to examine four stations. The stations included four versions of a mandibular first molar: an extracted natural tooth, a 3D printed model, a 3D virtual model, and a model displayed on a novel AR device. After examining all stations, the students were asked to complete an electronic survey. Bivariate analysis was performed to determine whether students’ perceptions are related to their demographic characteristics and technological experience with computer use, 3D modeling, and video games.
Results
Seventy students completed the survey (87.5% response rate). Students rated natural teeth to have the highest educational value, the 3D printed tooth to be the most accessible, and the AR application to be the most interesting modality. Students who played little to no video games were more likely to rate AR as high educational value (48.8% vs. 10.3%; p < 0.001), while students with little 3D modeling experience were more likely to rate high accessibility of the 3D Model (78.1% vs. 48.3%; p < 0.001). No statistically significant associations between the perceptions and students’ demographic characteristics or use of computer were noted.
Conclusion
The natural extracted tooth was rated highest in educational value, while the 3D printed model was rated easiest to use, and the AR model was the most interesting to the students.</description><subject>3D models</subject><subject>3D printing</subject><subject>augmented reality</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>instructional technology</subject><subject>virtual reality</subject><issn>0022-0337</issn><issn>1930-7837</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEtOwzAQhi0EEqWw4AZegtQU5-mYXdXyVAUbWEeuM2ldOXawHVXdcQTOyEkwDVtW8_i_Gc38CF3GZBoTktxs63oaJzQtjtAoZimJaJnSYzQKWhKRNKWn6My5bShZliUjtJthYdqOW-mMxqbBnYXvzy-hpJaCKyy187YXXhodKg9io40yawnuFr9w39tDF_xmgtMFbk0Nyh3SzkrtpV5PMNc15v26Be2hxha4kn5_jk4arhxc_MUxer-_e5s_RsvXh6f5bBmJcGsRMVqQLAEQIifAKeVCkDxmjJWUxKuMCyIS3qRJQwVb0YzRPBdlDTQrGIU6KGN0NeztrPnowfmqlU6AUlyD6V2V5FmZxZQWaUCvB1RY45yFpgo_tNzuq5hUv-ZWwdzqYG5gbwZ2JxXs_wer58VimPgBMMF9KA</recordid><startdate>202111</startdate><enddate>202111</enddate><creator>Mahrous, Ahmed</creator><creator>Elgreatly, Amira</creator><creator>Qian, Fang</creator><creator>Schneider, Galen B.</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4094-3313</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5436-8247</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202111</creationdate><title>A comparison of pre‐clinical instructional technologies: Natural teeth, 3D models, 3D printing, and augmented reality</title><author>Mahrous, Ahmed ; Elgreatly, Amira ; Qian, Fang ; Schneider, Galen B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3376-976042eecc50ea77acc0519998701b4ac0c2af32f7c9b749755c8de74697edaf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>3D models</topic><topic>3D printing</topic><topic>augmented reality</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>instructional technology</topic><topic>virtual reality</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mahrous, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elgreatly, Amira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qian, Fang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Galen B.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of dental education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mahrous, Ahmed</au><au>Elgreatly, Amira</au><au>Qian, Fang</au><au>Schneider, Galen B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of pre‐clinical instructional technologies: Natural teeth, 3D models, 3D printing, and augmented reality</atitle><jtitle>Journal of dental education</jtitle><date>2021-11</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1795</spage><epage>1801</epage><pages>1795-1801</pages><issn>0022-0337</issn><eissn>1930-7837</eissn><abstract>Purpose/Objectives
To assess student perceptions on learning dental anatomy using natural extracted teeth, 3D printed models, 3D virtual models, and augmented reality (AR) technology.
Methods
Eighty first‐year dental students enrolled in the dental anatomy course were instructed to examine four stations. The stations included four versions of a mandibular first molar: an extracted natural tooth, a 3D printed model, a 3D virtual model, and a model displayed on a novel AR device. After examining all stations, the students were asked to complete an electronic survey. Bivariate analysis was performed to determine whether students’ perceptions are related to their demographic characteristics and technological experience with computer use, 3D modeling, and video games.
Results
Seventy students completed the survey (87.5% response rate). Students rated natural teeth to have the highest educational value, the 3D printed tooth to be the most accessible, and the AR application to be the most interesting modality. Students who played little to no video games were more likely to rate AR as high educational value (48.8% vs. 10.3%; p < 0.001), while students with little 3D modeling experience were more likely to rate high accessibility of the 3D Model (78.1% vs. 48.3%; p < 0.001). No statistically significant associations between the perceptions and students’ demographic characteristics or use of computer were noted.
Conclusion
The natural extracted tooth was rated highest in educational value, while the 3D printed model was rated easiest to use, and the AR model was the most interesting to the students.</abstract><doi>10.1002/jdd.12736</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4094-3313</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5436-8247</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-0337 |
ispartof | Journal of dental education, 2021-11, Vol.85 (11), p.1795-1801 |
issn | 0022-0337 1930-7837 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2548417763 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | 3D models 3D printing augmented reality Dentistry instructional technology virtual reality |
title | A comparison of pre‐clinical instructional technologies: Natural teeth, 3D models, 3D printing, and augmented reality |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T10%3A44%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20pre%E2%80%90clinical%20instructional%20technologies:%20Natural%20teeth,%203D%20models,%203D%20printing,%20and%20augmented%20reality&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20dental%20education&rft.au=Mahrous,%20Ahmed&rft.date=2021-11&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1795&rft.epage=1801&rft.pages=1795-1801&rft.issn=0022-0337&rft.eissn=1930-7837&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jdd.12736&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2548417763%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2548417763&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |