ВУЗ:
Составители:
Рубрика:
83
information, diagrams, pictures, etc., and are asked to repeatedly perform procedures on plastic teeth.
The student’s product is then graded by an instructor who usually gives verbal feedback as well.
Reports on the impact of these simulation labs on dental student learning are sparse, but some studies
indicate that student performance on practical examination was not altered although student opinion of
these simulation laboratories was high. Reports from at least one school, which compared an older,
traditional laboratory to a new simulation lab over a three-year time period, indicate a reduction in the
number of procedures that can be completed by students with the new simulation laboratory. This is
perhaps due to increased time for evaluation since faculty must go to each station rather than the
students bringing dentoforms to the instructor. Student/faculty ratios improved minimally (from 13/1
to 11/1) in the simulation laboratories, but the percentage of student grades in the A range decreased
significantly (22.7 per cent to 4.5 percent). Although not documented, it has been hoped that the
transition to live patients is eased and students arrive in clinic better prepared even if students do not
receive grades as high as before. The need for resources such as faculty for evaluation is basically
unchanged and, based on what little research is available, simulation laboratories have had little impact
on the way schools teach preclinical procedures.
The cost of a simulation laboratory is moderately high ($2,000 to $10,000 per unit), but many
schools in the United States have been able to afford a more technology-updated simulation preclinical
laboratory within the last eight to ten years. The current simulation laboratories do not require a new
approach in basic teaching methodology, but they provide students with a more realistic simulated
patient, emphasize ergonomics, and provide an active, hands-on learning environment.
Virtual reality-based simulation
However, these simulation laboratories are losing their position as “state of the art” due to the
emergence, in the last few years, of technology of a higher dimension. Virtual reality-based technology
(VRBT) is being used, evaluated, and researched in many areas of health care training and is now
being used in dental education as well. Four products deserve discussion because of their potential in
dental education: the DentSim simulator […]; the IGI (Image Guided Implantology) unit […]; the
VRDTS (Virtual Reality Dental Training System) prototype […]; and the IDSS (Iowa Dental Surgical
Simulator) […].
All of these systems use VRBT. Furthermore, these units have a major advantage over the
current simulation technology because, in addition to having most of the benefits of the current
simulation lab, VRBT units are designed to provide evaluations of the students’ performance. This
capability of VRBT offers a great potential for significant impact on dental education. (From: Judith
Ann Buchanan, Ph.D., D.M.D. Use of simulation technology in dental education.)
information, diagrams, pictures, etc., and are asked to repeatedly perform procedures on plastic teeth. The students product is then graded by an instructor who usually gives verbal feedback as well. Reports on the impact of these simulation labs on dental student learning are sparse, but some studies indicate that student performance on practical examination was not altered although student opinion of these simulation laboratories was high. Reports from at least one school, which compared an older, traditional laboratory to a new simulation lab over a three-year time period, indicate a reduction in the number of procedures that can be completed by students with the new simulation laboratory. This is perhaps due to increased time for evaluation since faculty must go to each station rather than the students bringing dentoforms to the instructor. Student/faculty ratios improved minimally (from 13/1 to 11/1) in the simulation laboratories, but the percentage of student grades in the A range decreased significantly (22.7 per cent to 4.5 percent). Although not documented, it has been hoped that the transition to live patients is eased and students arrive in clinic better prepared even if students do not receive grades as high as before. The need for resources such as faculty for evaluation is basically unchanged and, based on what little research is available, simulation laboratories have had little impact on the way schools teach preclinical procedures. The cost of a simulation laboratory is moderately high ($2,000 to $10,000 per unit), but many schools in the United States have been able to afford a more technology-updated simulation preclinical laboratory within the last eight to ten years. The current simulation laboratories do not require a new approach in basic teaching methodology, but they provide students with a more realistic simulated patient, emphasize ergonomics, and provide an active, hands-on learning environment. Virtual reality-based simulation However, these simulation laboratories are losing their position as state of the art due to the emergence, in the last few years, of technology of a higher dimension. Virtual reality-based technology (VRBT) is being used, evaluated, and researched in many areas of health care training and is now being used in dental education as well. Four products deserve discussion because of their potential in dental education: the DentSim simulator [ ]; the IGI (Image Guided Implantology) unit [ ]; the VRDTS (Virtual Reality Dental Training System) prototype [ ]; and the IDSS (Iowa Dental Surgical Simulator) [ ]. All of these systems use VRBT. Furthermore, these units have a major advantage over the current simulation technology because, in addition to having most of the benefits of the current simulation lab, VRBT units are designed to provide evaluations of the students performance. This capability of VRBT offers a great potential for significant impact on dental education. (From: Judith Ann Buchanan, Ph.D., D.M.D. Use of simulation technology in dental education.) 83