Digital and immersive approaches to anatomy education: a pilot comparative study of CI, VR, and hybrid learning in implant planning

Abstract Background A solid understanding of anatomy is fundamental in dental education, and accurate interpretation of maxillofacial structures is essential across clinical contexts. Implantology is an example of a complex procedure that undergraduate students learn theoretically before supervised practice. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides the necessary radiological information, typically explored through conventional computer interfaces (CI). These non-immersive interfaces support diagnostic interpretation but may offer limited spatial engagement. Virtual reality (VR) provides an immersive 3D environment that may enhance conceptual understanding and long-term retention. Comparative evidence across CI, VR, and hybrid CI + VR modalities in undergraduate dental anatomy and implantology education remains limited. Methods Twenty undergraduate dental students were randomly assigned to CI, VR, or CI + VR following a baseline lecture. Learning outcomes were assessed using a validated rubric at Pre-test (knowledge, understanding), Post-test (knowledge, understanding, application), and one-month Follow-Up. Quantitative outcomes were analysed using mean scores, mean differences, percentage change, and retention metrics. Complementary qualitative insights were obtained through short semi-structured interviews focusing on usability, visualization clarity, and perceived educational value. Results All modalities improved performance in at least one domain. In Knowledge, mean scores increased from 2.00 to 2.71 in CI (p = 0.008), from 1.86 to 2.29 in VR (p = 0.078), and from 1.83 to 2.50 in CI + VR (p = 0.025). In Understanding, means increased from 4.57 to 6.00 in CI (p = 0.008), from 3.71 to 5.71 in VR (p = 0.004), and from 5.00 to 6.00 in CI + VR (p = 0.076). At Follow-Up, Knowledge means were 2.28 (CI), 2.00 (VR), and 2.33 (CI + VR), and Understanding means were 5.70 (CI), 5.70 (VR), and 5.60 (CI + VR). Application scores increased across all groups (CI: 6.00→6.42; VR: 4.71→5.55; CI + VR: 4.50→4.98). Interviews indicated that CI was valued for diagnostic precision, VR for immersive 3D visualization, and CI + VR for combining accuracy with experiential learning. Conclusions Each instructional modality improved learning performance, but with distinct strengths. CI supported diagnostic precision, VR maximized conceptual understanding and retention, and CI + VR offered the most balanced gains with the strongest Knowledge stability. Qualitative findings aligned with these patterns, highlighting CI’s clarity, VR’s immersive engagement, and CI + VR’s combined benefits. Immersive and hybrid technologies therefore represent valuable complementary strategies for enhancing maxillofacial anatomy learning in dental education.