Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Effectiveness of artificial intelligence-driven simulation in dental education: a systematic review and meta-analysis of learning outcomes

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2789raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
f51d5cfd9e89…check it

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and quantitatively synthesize the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven simulation (ADS) technologies in improving learning outcomes in dental education. METHODS: The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched up to March 2026. Studies evaluating ADS modalities, with or without a comparator, were included. Comparative studies with appropriate control groups contributed to the meta-analysis, while all…

The gain

A systematic review and meta-analysis of five comparative studies (557 dental students) found AI-driven simulation was associated with better overall learning outcomes than traditional training (SMD 1.20; 95% CI 0.73-1.67).

What this doesn’t fix

The pooled estimate combines randomized and non-randomized studies, mixes psychomotor, cognitive and subjective outcomes, shows moderate-to-high heterogeneity, and rests on few, mostly short-term studies with moderate-to-serious risk of bias.

Sources

1 on file
  1. BMC Medical Educationdoi:10.1186/s12909-026-09390-6
    Peer-reviewed2026-05-13

What the review found when it combined the studies

These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.

  • Overall learning outcomes after trim-and-fill adjustment for possible publication bias

    SMD 1.04 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.51)

    557 people · search to March 2026

    The review’s own words
    The effect size was reduced slightly after adjustment, to SMD = 1.04 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.51; p = 0.0013), although this was still significant, suggesting potential publication bias; however, given the small number of studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution and do not allow reliable conclusions regarding the presence or impact of publication bias.

  • Learning outcomes with intelligent tutoring system simulation compared with traditional simulation (network meta-analysis)

    SMD 1.91 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.69)

    557 people · search to March 2026

    The review’s own words
    ITS-based systems recorded the highest effect compared to traditional simulation (SMD = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.69), followed by VR-haptic (SMD = 1.53) and VR adaptive (SMD = 1.49).

  • Overall learning outcomes of dental students with AI-driven simulation compared with traditional training

    SMD 1.20 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.67)

    557 people · search to March 2026

    The review’s own words
    ADS, considered as a heterogeneous group of AI-based educational interventions, was associated with improved overall learning outcomes compared to traditional methods (SMD = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.73-1.67).

  • Overall learning outcomes excluding studies with imputed standard deviations (sensitivity analysis)

    SMD 0.94 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.46)

    search to March 2026

    The review’s own words
    When performing sensitivity analysis excluding studies with imputed standard deviations [ 28 , 34 ], the pooled effect was slightly reduced but remained statistically significant (SMD = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.42–1.46, p = 0.0102), indicating no material impact on overall findings.

Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2789, v1: “Effectiveness of artificial intelligence-driven simulation in dental education: a systematic review and meta-analysis of learning outcomes.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2789 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 f51d5cfd9e890a00…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv1f51d5cfd9e89…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2789 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.