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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of dental education 2021-11, Vol.85 (11), p.1795-1801
Hauptverfasser: Mahrous, Ahmed, Elgreatly, Amira, Qian, Fang, Schneider, Galen B.
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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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