Objective: This article aims to evaluate dental students' experiences, perceptions, and expectations related to training with virtual reality-based haptic simulators (VRHS) introduced into the preclinical and clinical dental curriculum. Materials and Methods: A mixed-method, online survey was administered to 143 dental students during the 2020/2021 academic year. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: (1) nine items on demographics, digital technology use, and learning preferences, and (2) 18 Likert-scale statements and five single-choice questions assessing VRHS usability, realism, educational value, and training preferences. Responses were collected via Microsoft Forms. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics were generated for all survey items. Cluster analysis of survey patterns (MCA) was applied to identify students' attitudes toward VRHS and to explore potential clusters of user profiles. Results: A total of 90 responses were obtained (62.9%). Students reported that VRHS training was easy to use (82%), realistic (62.2%), beneficial to the learning process (80%), and supportive in developing manual dexterity (70%). Feedback generated by the simulator was considered clear and understandable by 60% of participants. Over half (51%) stated they would like to continue using VRHS in subsequent years of study. Half of the respondents believed that second-year students should practice more on VRHS than on phantom heads, although 87.8% emphasized the importance of combining VRHS with traditional phantom-based training. Students strongly preferred early integration of VRHS, with 86.7% supporting its inclusion at the preclinical stage. Conclusion: VRHS training was well-accepted and perceived as a valuable addition to preclinical dental education. Students favored introducing VRHS early in their curriculum to strengthen foundational manual skills. While recognizing its benefits, participants did not support replacing phantom-based training entirely; instead, they preferred a hybrid approach combining VRHS with traditional simulation methods.
Zadrożny et al. (Tue,) studied this question.