Dental task trainer simulators using haptics (virtual touch) offers a cost-effective method of teaching certain clinical skills. The purpose of this study is to evaluate students’ performance in removing artificial caries after training with either a haptic dental chair simulator with virtual reality or a traditional dental chair simulator with a mannequin head. Cluster Randomized Controlled Trials in two cohorts, both Year 1 dental students. Students taught using traditional dental chair simulators were compared with students taught using haptic-based simulators on their ability to cut a cavity in a plastic tooth following training. Across both cohorts, there was no difference in the quality of cavity cut, though students’ technique differed across the two simulator groups in some respects. No difference was seen across both cohorts in the quality of cavity cut for a simple preparation, though students in the haptic condition performed less well in the more demanding task. Moreover, students in the haptic group were also less likely to be perceived to be ‘holding the instrument appropriately’. These findings suggest further investigation is needed into the differences in handling of instruments and level of clinical task difficulty between the simulators.

Aims and objectives To develop an alternative evaluation checklist which is informed by Nichols and Hassall (2011) and illustrate how this can be applied to evaluate a random sample of dental practice websites on the basis of its usability, technical design and meeting professional standards and guidance mandated by a dental professional body. Materials and methods 104 dental practice websites were systematically selected from a major city in the UK and evaluated using the 11Ps (alternative evaluation checklist). A primary and secondary analysis (by a second rater) was conducted of all the websites ensuring results were accurate and that all questions in the checklist were answered. Results Of the dental practices considered, none met all the specifications in the 11 Ps Evaluation Checklist. Our results revealed the frequency of compliance to various professional standards were low such as presenting information to the practices’ complaint’s procedure. Conclusions Dental practices in the UK would benefit from further guidance on how to design their websites in alignment with professional guidance. Compliance to some obligatory professional standards were high, however, many professional guidelines were not adhered to. Our proposed 11 P’s evaluation checklist can be further adapted for an in-depth assessment with consideration to professional standards, usability, and technical design.