Evaluating augmented reality e-typodont to improve a patient's dental implant health literacy

Dental implant placement with immersive technologies: A preliminary clinical report of augmented and mixed reality applications

A preliminary clinical report of implant placements with 2 immersive reality technologies is described: augmented reality with head mounted display and mixed reality with a tablet PC. Both immersive realities are promising and could facilitate innovative dental applications. However, mixed reality requires further development for clinical optimization.

Taxonomic discordance of immersive realities in dentistry: A systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to map taxonomy frameworks, descriptions, and applications of immersive technologies in the dental literature.

DATA

The Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines was followed, and the protocol was registered at open science framework platform (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/H6N8M).

SOURCES

Systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, and complemented by manual search.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 84 articles were included, with 81 % between 2019 and 2023. Most studies were experimental (62 %), including education (25 %), protocol feasibility (20 %), in vitro (11 %), and cadaver (6 %). Other study types included clinical report/technique article (24 %), clinical study (9 %), technical note/tip to reader (4 %), and randomized controlled trial (1 %). Three-quarters of the included studies were published in oral and maxillofacial surgery (38 %), dental education (26 %), and implant (12 %) disciplines. Methods of display included head mounted display device (HMD) (55 %), see through screen (32 %), 2D screen display (11 %), and projector display (2 %). Descriptions of immersive realities were fragmented and inconsistent with lack of clear taxonomy framework for the umbrella and the subset terms including virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), augmented virtuality (AV), extended reality, and X reality.

CONCLUSIONS

Immersive reality applications in dentistry are gaining popularity with a notable surge in the number of publications in the last 5 years. Ambiguities are apparent in the descriptions of immersive realities. A taxonomy framework based on method of display (full or partial) and reality class (VR, AR, or MR) is proposed.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Understanding different reality classes can be perplexing due to their blurred boundaries and conceptual overlapping. Immersive technologies offer novel educational and clinical applications. This domain is fast developing. With the current fragmented and inconsistent terminologies, a comprehensive taxonomy framework is necessary.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven dental education: Exploring the role of chatbots in a clinical learning environment

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Despite their widespread use in various educational contexts, the integration of chatbots into dental clinical education has not been thoroughly investigated. The noted discrepancy signifies a lack of understanding of how chatbots could enhance the personalized and interactive learning experiences of predoctoral dental students.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the awareness and perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, interaction experiences, and concerns about a custom-developed chatbot (CB) intervention in the clinical education of predoctoral dental students at the University of Illinois Chicago, College of Dentistry (UIC-COD) compared with the traditional Blackboard (BB) online platform.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eligible participants (n=86) providing verbal consent were allocated via the random block method into BB (n=43) and CB (n=43) groups and asked to engage with their designated platforms for 10 to 15 minutes by focusing on clinical inquiries in a predoctoral implant clinic and supported by a list of 35 typical questions. After the interaction, participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale to a 19-item survey probing AI awareness, platform engagement, and technological concerns. Survey data were anonymized and analyzed using descriptive, inferential statistics and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests to compare interventions. The Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was performed (α=.0045).

RESULTS

Neither the BB or CB group showed any difference in their awareness and perception of AI technology. The CB group demonstrated improved timeliness (P<.001), more interaction (P<.001), reduced faculty workload (P=.001), enhanced receptiveness (P=.002), and less anxiety (P<.001) and was more satisfied (P<.001) when compared with the BB group. However, concerns regarding the potential for incorrect information (P=.003) were more pronounced in the CB group.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of chatbot technology into dental clinical education significantly enhanced learning and student engagement, highlighting the potential for future technological enrichment of the educational landscape.