Endodontic access cavity training using artificial teeth and Simodont® dental trainer: A comparison of student performance and acceptance.

Introduction: Competency in endodontic access cavity preparation requires key motor skills, good conceptual understanding, along with an appreciation of 3-dimensional pulp chamber anatomy. These are traditionally learned using natural or artificial teeth (AT) mounted within a phantom head (PH). Simodont® (Nissin Dental Products INC, JPN) is a haptic virtual reality simulator (HVRS) and offers an alternative to AT for training.

Aims: This study aimed to (1) evaluate the evolution in the performance of learners trained to prepare access cavities incorporating Simodont (test group) against learners trained on AT mounted within PH (control group), (2) determine learner acceptability of HVRS.

Methodology: Forty dental students, with no prior endodontic training, were given instruction and video demonstration of access cavity preparation using a mandibular left 1st molar AT (LL6). Thereafter, they prepared an access cavity on PH mounted AT LL6. This provided a baseline record of performance. Participants were randomly assigned to the test or control groups. The test group (n = 22) trained using Simodont: preparing a virtual tooth LL6 for a period of 60 minutes with instructor feedback. The control group (n = 18) trained using AT LL6 on a PH for 60 minutes with instructor feedback. Subsequently, learners from both groups prepared an access cavity on an AT LL6 in a PH. This provided a re-evaluation record. Two calibrated examiners graded the teeth from the baseline and re-evaluation using rubric criteria; assigning scores with a grading range from 0 to 17. The examiners were blinded to which group the teeth belonged. Change in performance was determined by calculating the difference in assessment grade from baseline to re-evaluation. Scores which improved by 3 or more units were labelled improvers, all other scores were described as non-improvers.

Results: Within the test group, the numbers of improvers were 5 (23%) versus 7 (39%) in the control group The difference failed to indicate statistical significance (p = .315). The Cohen kappa values for intra and inter-examiner agreement were 1.00 and 0.73 respectively.

Conclusion: The evolution of skills in learners trained using Simodont is comparable to those trained using AT. It is, therefore, reasonable to use Simodont, which was acceptable to learners, as an adjunct to AT for endodontic access cavity training.