Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
. Subsequently, both the test and control group students attended another conventional pulpotomy simulation session where the quality of their access outline and pulp chamber deroofing steps were evaluated on plastic teeth. After the control group students also experienced the HVRS, all study participants completed a perception questionnaire on their experience. No significant differences were found between the study and control group students for the quantitative parameters assessed. Although the students regarded HVRS to be a useful adjunct to support their pre-clinical training, an overwhelming majority of the students did not consider HVRS to be a replacement for conventional pre-clinical simulation training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Philip et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: