Table 1_Haptic versus conventional training in undergraduate implantology education: a randomized controlled pilot study.docx

Satisfaction, motivation, and self-perceived improvement after training were evaluated using five-point Likert-scale questionnaires. Non-parametric tests were used for inferential analyses, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.</p>Results<p>No statistically significant between-group differences were detected in coronal, apical, vertical, or angular deviations within either training modality. However, MG1 showed numerically lower coronal, apical, and angular deviations, particularly during conventional jaw-model training.

No statistically significant between-group differences were detected in procedural times; however, MG1 showed the shortest drilling times in both modalities. Satisfaction and motivation were high across all groups. Statistically significant between-group differences were observed in selected items related to perceived realism and self-perceived improvement after training; however, these isolated findings should be considered exploratory given the multiple comparisons performed.

No adverse events were reported.</p>Conclusion<p>Haptic simulation was a well-accepted complementary tool for undergraduate implantology education. Although objective accuracy and procedural-time outcomes did not differ significantly between groups, exploratory differences in selected student-reported outcomes warrant further investigation of potential sequence-related effects. Larger studies with longer training exposure are needed to determine its effect on practical skill acquisition.</p>