1 of 23

Enhancing Virtual Patient Simulation In Dentistry

Custom Case Generation

For Tailored Learning Experience

1

GROUP 15

E/18/013 - Abilash R.

E/18/115 - Gowsigan A.�E/18/203 - Madhusanka K.G.A.S.

SUPERVISORS

Dr. Upul Jayasinghe

Prof. Roshan G. Ragel

Dr. D Leuke Bandara

Dr. Dilrukshi Gamage

2 of 23

2

Introduction

3 of 23

Scarcity of available patient cases.
Lack of feedback for the student performances.
Need high technology, high cost.
Most of the case-based simulators, presented the patient case in 2D images.

Limited patient case is available.
Difficulty in customizing the 3D model, the existing 3D model was based on the available patient case.
Providing necessary markings on the Dental chart, for all teeth.

3

Problems In Existing Simulators

Limitations In Previous Work

4 of 23

Develop a separate interface for tutors to create customized patient cases within the simulator.
Modify the 3D-Model for Semi-automation according to each case.
Develop a markable dental chart and check with correct answers.
Assess the system usability from students’ and tutors’ perspective.

4

Our Solution

5 of 23

5

Methodology

6 of 23

6

1. Tutor Interface Development for Custom Case Creation

i) Getting dental case details

iv) Markable digital dental chart to indicate tooth defects

ii) Question bank for history-taking questions

ii) Common template to add questions & answers

7 of 23

7

2. Student Interface Modification According to Feedback

Restructured the website for better navigation.
Added smooth scrolling for improved UX.
Changed the system from static to dynamic web pages using APIs.
Integrated dental chart functionality into the system

8 of 23

8

3. Patient 3D Model Customization Using Dental Chart Markings

9 of 23

9

System Overview

10 of 23

Experiments &

10

Findings

Slide Title: HCI Evaluation Summary

Objective: Assess usability and navigational ease of the system for students.

Participants: Conducted with 10 students.

Methodology:

Utilized pre- and post-evaluation questionnaires to gather direct feedback and user ratings.

Tracked time spent by students in each section of the website.

Identified specific areas where students experienced difficulties in navigation and usability.

Key Findings:

Quantitative data collected on time spent in each section helped pinpoint less intuitive areas.

Qualitative feedback from questionnaires highlighted user satisfaction and areas for improvement.

Challenges Identified:

Specific sections where navigation was not intuitive or features were difficult to use.

Conclusions:

Insights from the evaluation are critical for guiding iterative improvements.

Actions to enhance user interface and experience based on direct user feedback and observed difficulties.

11 of 23

11

Usability Test

HCI Evaluation for Tutors

HCI Evaluation for Students

Obtained informed consent

Pre-Questionnaire

Demographic info & experience with online teaching

Pre-Questionnaire

Demographic info & Exposure to online learning

Try Out Tutor System

Participant → Create different dental cases

Try Out Student System

Participant → Complete a patient case scenario

Researcher → Measure the completion time

Post-Questionnaire

Surveyed the participant satisfaction

Post-Questionnaire

Surveyed the participant satisfaction

12 of 23

Student Evaluation

12

Slide Title: HCI Evaluation Summary

Objective: Assess usability and navigational ease of the system for students.

Participants: Conducted with 10 students.

Methodology:

Utilized pre- and post-evaluation questionnaires to gather direct feedback and user ratings.

Tracked time spent by students in each section of the website.

Identified specific areas where students experienced difficulties in navigation and usability.

Key Findings:

Quantitative data collected on time spent in each section helped pinpoint less intuitive areas.

Qualitative feedback from questionnaires highlighted user satisfaction and areas for improvement.

Challenges Identified:

Specific sections where navigation was not intuitive or features were difficult to use.

Conclusions:

Insights from the evaluation are critical for guiding iterative improvements.

Actions to enhance user interface and experience based on direct user feedback and observed difficulties.

13 of 23

Surveyed students' feedback with 6 targeted questions using a 5-point Likert Scale.

13

Post-Questionnaire Responses

14 of 23

14

Average Ratings Of the Post-Questionnaire

(1 - Poor, 2 - Fair, 3 - Good, 4 - Very Good, 5 - Excellent)

15 of 23

15

Kruskal-Wallis Test: Factors Influencing Completion Time

Factor	P-Value	Significant Difference (Threshold = 0.05)
Proficiency Level (1 - 5)	0.142	No significant difference in the completion time based on the proficiency level.
Gender (Male, Female)	0.462	No significant difference in the completion time based on gender.
Academic Semester (5th - 9th)	0.421	No significant difference in the completion time based on the academic semester.
Web Navigation Familiarity (1 - 5)	0.097	No significant difference in the completion time based on the web navigation familiarity.

16 of 23

Tutor Evaluation

16

Slide Title: HCI Evaluation Summary

Objective: Assess usability and navigational ease of the system for students.

Participants: Conducted with 10 students.

Methodology:

Utilized pre- and post-evaluation questionnaires to gather direct feedback and user ratings.

Tracked time spent by students in each section of the website.

Identified specific areas where students experienced difficulties in navigation and usability.

Key Findings:

Quantitative data collected on time spent in each section helped pinpoint less intuitive areas.

Qualitative feedback from questionnaires highlighted user satisfaction and areas for improvement.

Challenges Identified:

Specific sections where navigation was not intuitive or features were difficult to use.

Conclusions:

Insights from the evaluation are critical for guiding iterative improvements.

Actions to enhance user interface and experience based on direct user feedback and observed difficulties.

17 of 23

Surveyed tutors' feedback with 5 targeted questions using a 5-point Likert Scale.

17

Post-Questionnaire Responses

18 of 23

18

Average Ratings Of the Post-Questionnaire

(1 - Poor, 2 - Fair, 3 - Good, 4 - Very Good, 5 - Excellent)

19 of 23

19

Mann–Whitney U Test

Factor	P-Value	Significant Difference (Threshold = 0.05)
Experience in dental field�(Less than 1 year, 1-5 years, 5-10 years, 10 years +)	0.097	No significant difference with the overall satisfaction based on dentistry experience.
Proficiency using computers (1-Poor, 2-Fair, 3-Good, 4-Very Good, 5-Excellent)	0.378	No significant difference with the overall satisfaction based on computer proficiency.
Familiarity with digital tools in teaching activities (1-Poor, 2-Fair, 3-Good, 4-Very Good, 5-Excellent)	0.143	No significant difference with the overall satisfaction based on digital dental tools.

Kruskal-Wallis Test: Factors Influencing Overall Satisfaction

Factor 1	Factor 2	P-Value	Significant Difference (Threshold = 0.05)
Previous experience with digital dental charting (Yes, No)	User-friendliness of tutor interface digital dental chart (1 - 5)	0.617	No significant difference
Previous experience with online case based scenario creation (Yes, No)	Overall satisfaction with the custom case creation through tutor interface (1 - 5)	0.508	No significant difference

20 of 23

20

Enhance usability of the Virtual Patient Simulator with custom case creation.

Simplified and streamlined the case creation process for tutors.
Enhanced learning accessibility by providing various case scenarios for students.
Improved adoption and increased the usability of the simulator.

Effective system for tutors to create dental cases.
Intuitive interface for students to gain practical experience.

Expected Outcome

Deliverables

Impact

21 of 23

Thank You!

Q & A

21

22 of 23

System

22

Demonstration

23 of 23

23

��https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g91zGBrrJpVOOFapYH1qpIF3jj0euxFZ/view?usp=sharing

Demonstration Link