<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>14(1)</volume><submitter>Folguera S</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;b>Background/Objectives&lt;/b>: Augmented Reality (AR) is promising in dental education, yet its impact on &lt;i>caries detection&lt;/i> training remains underexplored. This study aimed to compare the effect of a web-based AR (WebAR) learning object with a content- and interface-matched interactive 2D presentation on undergraduate students' motivation to learn caries detection. &lt;b>Methods&lt;/b>: Two learning objects were expressly designed using a real patient's dental records: a WebAR image-tracking experience (built with Zapworks Studio&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup>) and a 2D interactive presentation (built with Genially&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup>). The WebAR object showed the patient's 3D dental arches with tooth-level hotspots linking clinical and radiographic media. The 2D comparator mirrored the same assets and navigation, restricting visualization to 2D. Third-year dental students were randomly assigned to either the AR or Genially&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup> (G) group. After completing ICDAS-based caries identification, participants completed the 12-item Reduced Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (RIMMS) and provided open-ended feedback. Group differences were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test (&lt;i>p&lt;/i> &lt; 0.05). &lt;b>Results&lt;/b>: Eighty-five students completed the study (AR n = 46; G n = 39). The AR group achieved a higher total RIMMS score (4.14 vs. 3.53 on a 5-point scale; &lt;i>p&lt;/i> &lt; 0.001), with significantly higher means in Attention, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Relevance (&lt;i>p&lt;/i> &lt; 0.05). Open-ended comments were more positive with AR (75.8% vs. 31.0%), while graphics-related complaints were more frequent with the Genially&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup> resource (34.5% vs. 75.0%). &lt;b>Conclusions&lt;/b>: WebAR achieved higher RIMMS motivation scores than a content-matched interactive presentation. Adding 3D spatial interaction to otherwise equivalent materials can enhance learners' motivation for caries detection training, while remaining low-cost and scalable.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Dentistry journal</journal><pagination>1</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12840382</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Web-Based Augmented Reality vs. Interactive Presentation for Learning Caries Detection: A Randomized Study on Student Motivation.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12840382</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Forner L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sanz JL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Folguera S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Llena C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Melo M</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Web-Based Augmented Reality vs. Interactive Presentation for Learning Caries Detection: A Randomized Study on Student Motivation.</name><description>&lt;b>Background/Objectives&lt;/b>: Augmented Reality (AR) is promising in dental education, yet its impact on &lt;i>caries detection&lt;/i> training remains underexplored. This study aimed to compare the effect of a web-based AR (WebAR) learning object with a content- and interface-matched interactive 2D presentation on undergraduate students' motivation to learn caries detection. &lt;b>Methods&lt;/b>: Two learning objects were expressly designed using a real patient's dental records: a WebAR image-tracking experience (built with Zapworks Studio&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup>) and a 2D interactive presentation (built with Genially&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup>). The WebAR object showed the patient's 3D dental arches with tooth-level hotspots linking clinical and radiographic media. The 2D comparator mirrored the same assets and navigation, restricting visualization to 2D. Third-year dental students were randomly assigned to either the AR or Genially&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup> (G) group. After completing ICDAS-based caries identification, participants completed the 12-item Reduced Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (RIMMS) and provided open-ended feedback. Group differences were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test (&lt;i>p&lt;/i> &lt; 0.05). &lt;b>Results&lt;/b>: Eighty-five students completed the study (AR n = 46; G n = 39). The AR group achieved a higher total RIMMS score (4.14 vs. 3.53 on a 5-point scale; &lt;i>p&lt;/i> &lt; 0.001), with significantly higher means in Attention, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Relevance (&lt;i>p&lt;/i> &lt; 0.05). Open-ended comments were more positive with AR (75.8% vs. 31.0%), while graphics-related complaints were more frequent with the Genially&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup> resource (34.5% vs. 75.0%). &lt;b>Conclusions&lt;/b>: WebAR achieved higher RIMMS motivation scores than a content-matched interactive presentation. Adding 3D spatial interaction to otherwise equivalent materials can enhance learners' motivation for caries detection training, while remaining low-cost and scalable.</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Dec</publication><modification>2026-06-09T03:14:36.252Z</modification><creation>2026-06-09T03:11:27.003Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12840382</accession><cross_references><pubmed>41590125</pubmed><doi>10.3390/dj14010001</doi></cross_references></HashMap>