Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 27, 2026
Mixed Reality Technology and Three-Dimensional Printing in Teaching: Heart Anatomy as an Example
Published on: April 18, 2025
An Exploratory Comparative Analysis of Mixed Reality Simulation Versus 3D-Printed Models for Undergraduate Training
Ruza Bjelovucic1, Bruna Neves de Freitas1,2, Sven Erik Nørholt1,3
1Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Purpose/Objectives:
To compare the effectiveness of MR simulation and 3D-printed models in training undergraduate students in wisdom tooth removal, and to assess students' perceptions of the MR simulator.
Methods:
Students trained first on either the MR simulator or 3D-printed plastic models and then repeated the training using the other method on the same day ("MR-first" and "plastic-first" groups). Post-training perceptions were collected using a 7-point Likert scale covering realism, usability, and effectiveness. Group differences in performance metrics were assessed using linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations. Likert scale scores were summarized descriptively.
Results:
Twenty undergraduate dental students participated in a randomized crossover study. Task completion time did not differ significantly between simulation modalities, although participants tended to complete the second simulation faster, indicating a learning effect. Bone removal volume did not differ significantly between simulation modalities despite a trend toward less bone removal in the MR simulator (β = -20.09 mm3, 95% CI -40.59 to 0.42, p = 0.055). Within-modality analysis showed a significant reduction in bone removal between Period 1 and Period 2 for the MR simulator (β = -33.29 mm3, 95% CI -53.92 to -12.66, p = 0.0016), while no such effect was observed for the plastic model. Procedural error rates differed: Lingual bone perforation was significantly more frequent in the MR simulator compared with the plastic model (OR = 5.72, 95% CI 1.60-20.43, p = 0.007), whereas second molar damage and incomplete root removal did not differ significantly between modalities. Students rated the MR experience highly (realism/usability: mean = 6.40, SD = 0.68; perceived learning effectiveness: mean = 6.23, SD = 0.87).
Conclusions:
MR offers high-perceived realism and allows repeated, standardized training, while 3D-printed models provide tactile feedback. Together, these findings suggest that MR can serve as a valuable complement to existing teaching methods in third molar surgery training.
