Animal, Cadaver or Plastic? A Comparison of Models Used for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgical Training

ABSTRACT Objective The objective of this paper was to assess the perceived usefulness of various training models (animal head, fresh frozen human cadaver head or plastic model) used for performing and teaching oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures, based on a survey of oral surgeons. Methods Fifty UK‐based oral surgeons working in a combination of primary care, secondary care and specialist practice were invited to complete an anonymised electronic questionnaire. Participants were questioned on their experience of three categories of simulated training models (animal head, human cadaver head or 3D‐printed/plastic model) for 11 specific oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures. Results Fifty surveys were received, with an overall preference for training on cadaveric models reported by 76% of respondents. Animal models were preferred by 27%, and 3D models by just 9%. There were wide variations in experience, with respondents having most experience with animal models, and least with human cadavers. Conclusion Our study has shown human cadaver specimens were deemed preferable to animal heads or plastic models. However, cadavers are the most expensive and require specialist facilities. The animal head model is a cost‐effective and acceptable solution for surgical training for basic oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures. These are important factors to consider for dental educators when choosing simulated training models for teaching oral surgical procedures.