Application of Virtual Reality Haptic Simulators in Periodontics: Insights from Dental Professionals

Santiago Arias-Herrera^1*Zaraida Catala-Oriola^1,2Joao Firmino-Canhoto^1,2Anabel Gramatges Rojas^1,2María Florencia Sittoni Pino¹Nicla Flacco¹

• ¹Dentistry Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Europea de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
• ²School for Doctoral Studies and Research. Univerisdad Europea de Madrid, Villaviciosa de Odon, Spain

Abstract Introduction: Haptic virtual reality simulatorsVirtual reality haptic simulator (HVRSVRHS)-training devices that integrate visual immersion with tactile feedback-are increasingly used in dental education, yet their application in periodontics remains limited. UltrasSonic scaling requires high tactile precision and control, making it a suitable domain for evaluating HVRS VRHS efficacy. This study assessed faculty perceptions and performance using VRHS HVRS for preclinical periodontal training compared with conventional simulation. Methods: A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures study was conducted with 30 calibrated faculty members (15 periodontists; 15 general dentists) from the European University of Valencia. Each participant performed standardized calculus removal tasks using both the Simodont® dental trainer and conventional mannequin-based models. Objective outcomes—treatment time, residual calculus, and tip angulation—were recorded, and perceptions were collected through a 14-item Likert questionnaire and open-ended questions adapted from Philip et al. (2023) and Bakr et al. (2016). Results: Treatment time was significantly shorter in conventional training (26.7% completed <2 min) compared with VRHS HVRS (13.3%; p=0.033). VRHS HVRS achieved higher residual calculus scores (3.00 ± 0.00 vs 2.75 ± 0.21; p<0.001) and improved tip angulation (2.68 ± 0.36 vs 2.51 ± 0.44; p=0.015). Within VRHSHVRS, periodontists outperformed general dentists in angulation (2.85 ± 0.18 vs 2.52 ± 0.42; p=0.010), though no other group differences were significant. Satisfaction scores were high (mean = 4.16 ± 0.45), and internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's α = 0.73). Faculty valued repetition, feedback, and confidence building but noted limited realism—particularly the absence of water, soft tissues, and subgingival calculus. Conclusion: VRHS HVRS improved precision and consistency in preclinical scaling while requiring longer completion times. Faculty endorsed its educational value as a complementary tool to conventional training. Continued refinement in tactile realism and broader multicenter validation are needed to consolidate its integration into periodontal education.