# Augmented and virtual reality in dental and oral and maxillofacial surgery education: a systematic review with a taxonomy of training technologies

## TL;DR

This paper reviews how augmented and virtual reality can improve dental and surgical training by offering safe, repeatable practice and better learning outcomes.

## Contribution

The study introduces a taxonomy of AR/VR training tools and evaluates their effectiveness in dental and maxillofacial surgery education.

## Key findings

- AR/VR tools showed equal or better outcomes than traditional training in preparation accuracy and diagnostic precision.
- Most studies reported low risk of bias, indicating reliable evidence for AR/VR effectiveness.
- User confidence improved with AR/VR training, though some studies found no significant advantage over conventional methods.

## Abstract

The use of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) in surgical training has increased significantly. Trainees in skill-intensive specialties such as dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) highly depend on treating real life cases under supervision. This old apprentice model is challenged by reduced learning opportunities and patient safety questions. AR and VR training can create alternative learning opportunities and intricate skill acquisition by simulating scenarios, providing real-time feedback and repetitive practice without patient risk. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and usability of AR/VR tools in surgical skills training and provides a clear overview of the available systems. In accordance with the PRISMA-SR guidelines, different databases were searched for studies published between April 2015 and 2025. Different AR and VR tools were assessed from twenty-five RCTs and categorized into three groups: haptic simulators, head-mounted devices, and software platforms. Bias assessment via the RoB-2 tool for randomized trials revealed an overall body of evidence with a low risk of bias. Most studies have shown equal or superior outcomes of AR/VR versus conventional training, particularly in terms of preparation accuracy, diagnostic precision, and learner confidence. A minority reported comparable results without clear advantages. In conclusion, AR/VR technologies show promise for enhancing surgical training, although methodological heterogeneity limits comparability. Further research with long-term RCTs, standardized outcomes and user satisfaction is therefore necessary.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-025-08561-1.