People | Locations | Statistics |
---|---|---|
Naji, M. |
| |
Motta, Antonella |
| |
Aletan, Dirar |
| |
Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
Ertürk, Emre |
| |
Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
Kononenko, Denys |
| |
Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
Bih, L. |
| |
Casati, R. |
| |
Muller, Hermance |
| |
Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
Azam, Siraj |
| |
Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
Blanpain, Bart |
| |
Ali, M. A. |
| |
Popa, V. |
| |
Rančić, M. |
| |
Ollier, Nadège |
| |
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
Landes, Michael |
| |
Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Serrano, Carlos
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (1/1 displayed)
Places of action
Organizations | Location | People |
---|
article
First experiences with patient-centered training in virtual reality
Abstract
<p>Context: In preclinical dental education, plastic and extracted teeth have been broadly used for skills training without specific focus on the patient behind the procedure. A patient-centered approach remains challenging in traditional simulation, which does not resemble realistic clinical situations. Objective: This article describes the development and first experiences with a patient-centered virtual reality training module (PC-VR) that allows dental care providers to prepare, beforehand and in virtual reality (VR), specific procedures required by their patients. Experiences with this patient-centered practice are described to reflect on its value for clinical training in dentistry. Design: Using an intraoral scanner, digital impressions of 10 patients were made; these served as stereolithography (STL) digital files, which were converted into volumetric haptic models for display in a VR dental simulator. In this study, students’ experiences were investigated through a short open-answer survey in 2018. Atlas.ti was used for qualitative analysis of the answers through the inductive methodology of the grounded theory approach. Results: Drillable virtual models of real patients were made available for training using VR. Inductive analysis of the experiences identified 5 dimensions describing the main features of PC-VR: added value, competence development, self-efficacy, outcomes, and room for development. Conclusion: This article provides a general overview of the possibilities and challenges of the implementation PC-VR in dental education. Although concrete effects on trainees’ self-confidence and performance are yet to be determined, all participants appreciated the opportunity to explore clinical situations before experiencing them in the context of a real patient.</p>