Enhancing Preclinical Proficiency in Aesthetic Medicine and Cosmetic Dermatology: An Evidence‐Based Review of Interactive Visual Simulation Techniques

ABSTRACT Background Unlike many clinical disciplines where simulation is already embedded in curricula, aesthetic medicine and cosmetic dermatology present distinctive training challenges. Interactive visual simulation techniques offer immersive, risk‐free environments for developing technique‐dependent competencies, but their evidence base within this specific field remains comparatively limited. Aims To identify the key features and potential value of interactive visual simulation techniques for aesthetic medicine and cosmetic dermatology, and to provide evidence‐based insights for integrating these technologies into academic training programs. Methods An evidence‐based review using the Best Bets methodology was conducted. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed and Google Scholar (October 2024–February 2025) for literature published between 2015 and 2025. Evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 Levels of Evidence, and quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programs (CASP) checklists. Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 897 reported participants across nine simulation modalities: virtual reality ( n = 2), augmented/mixed reality ( n = 1), 3D‐printed models ( n = 2), 3D digital simulation ( n = 1), hands‐on simulation ( n = 2), simulation‐based education ( n = 2), haptic feedback ( n = 1), smartphone applications ( n = 1), and AI applications ( n = 1). Three of the 13 studies were cross‐disciplinary (general dermatological suturing, smartphone adoption patterns, and AI‐assisted patient education) and were retained as contextual evidence rather than as direct tests of aesthetic‐specific training efficacy. Evidence was predominantly low‐level: Level II ( n = 2), Level III ( n = 3), Level IV ( n = 2), and Level V ( n = 6). Risk of bias was high across the majority. Reported outcomes clustered at Kirkpatrick Levels 1–2a (learner satisfaction and confidence), with only one study demonstrating objective skill improvement (Level 2b). Despite these limitations, simulation‐based techniques consistently demonstrated potential to improve self‐reported procedural knowledge and trainee confidence. Conclusion Simulation‐based training shows promise for aesthetic medicine and cosmetic dermatology. Although favorable outcomes were reported, these were predominantly confidence‐based (Kirkpatrick Level 2a) rather than objective skill measures. These results cautiously support integration of simulation technologies into training programs but underscore the urgent need for rigorous, randomized controlled trials with objective competence outcomes to establish long‐term efficacy and generalizability.