Skin Care news and information found at www.SpaTreatmentTraining.com brought to you by National Laser Institute. Are you interested in a career that can train you to be a Med Spa technician? Want to become a certified Laser Hair Removal Specialist, Laser Tattoo Removal Specialist, Botox Injections or many more exciting Medical Spa courses? Enroll in the National Laser Institute and find yourself on the fast track to success.

imageBackground
In East Asia, intraoral facial skeletal contour surgeries (intraoral FSCSs), including reduction gonioplasty, reduction malarplasty, and genioplasty, have become increasingly popular. Nonetheless, intraoral FSCSs are technically difficult and have a steep learning curve. An effective simulator could be beneficial for intraoral FSCS training. However, there is no intraoral FSCS simulator available. We introduced an intraoral FSCS simulator and assessed its effectiveness.
Methods
An intraoral FSCS simulator was established by covering a 3-dimensional printed skull with elastic cloth. Twenty residents were enrolled and randomly divided into experimental group A and control group B. Group A performed the intraoral FSCS on the simulator for 3 times. Group B performed the intraoral FSCS on skull model for 3 times. The intraoral FSCS simulator and trainees’ performance were evaluated by a trainee-reported questionnaire before and after training, the surgical outcomes were graded by 3 senior attending physicians. All questions and the surgical outcome were scored based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very poor, 5 = very good). The surgical times were recorded.
Results
The intraoral FSCS simulator (4.13 ± 0.64) simulated the surgical reality significantly better than the skull (2.6 ± 0.63). In intraoral FSCS simulator training, the restriction and compliance of the facial soft tissue were vividly mimicked (4.4 ± 0.51); the intraoral approach was vividly mimicked (4.07 ± 0.59). The intraoral FSCS simulator is significantly superior to the skull in improving participants’ confidence in performing intraoral FSCS, power system control, and intraoral approach adoption (<0.001). The average surgical outcome score was 3.11 ± 0.45 in group A and 3.91 ± 0.24 in group B. The average surgical time was 177.78 ± 28.38 minutes in group A and 65.26 ± 15.38 minutes in group B.
Conclusions
We developed the first intraoral FSCS simulator and proved its effectiveness preliminarily. Randomized controlled study with clinical cases is needed to further test its effectiveness.

Reviews of National Laser Institute