## 3 Results
### Usability Validation Results of the Simulator  
A questionnaire was administered to 30 dental students to verify the educational applicability of the simulator. Using the questionnaire, responses to individual questions within each category were collected, and the response rate for each category, along with the mean and standard deviation of responses to individual questions, was calculated. Figure 12 shows the response rates for each category, while Figure 13 shows the means and standard deviations of the responses to individual questions within each category. For the VR simulator category, 27.33% of responses were very good, 44.67% were good, 18.00% were normal, 4.00% were bad, and 6.00% were very bad, with 72% of the responses being positive. For the usability category, 21.11% of responses were very good, 54.44% were good, 14.44% were normal, 5.56% were bad, and 4.44% were very bad, with over 75% of the responses being positive. For the expertise category, 27.78% of responses were very good, 43.33% were good, 18.89% were normal, 5.56% were bad, and 4.44% were very bad, with over 71% of the responses being positive. For the educational usefulness category, 26.67% of responses were very good, 51.67% were good, 8.33% were normal, 6.67% were bad, and 6.67% were very bad, with over 78% of the responses being positive. Figure 12: Graph of response rates each category. Figure 13: Average and standard deviations for each question by category. Specifically, for the VR simulator category, the average score for the five questions was 3.83, with a standard deviation of 1.08. This result indicates that the 3D models in the virtual space of the simulator are clearly displayed, and the internal functions are working well. However, the average score for the fifth question was relatively low. This may be due to the students' lack of experience with VR equipment (HMD and controllers), making them less skilled in using the interaction devices, thus leading to lower responses. For the usability category, the average score for the three questions was 3.82, with a standard deviation of 0.76. This result suggests that the simulator's model-related interaction functions are being carried out smoothly, and that performing functions through the controller is easy. However, the average score for the third question was relatively low. This may be due to the UI/UX being limited to simply conveying visual information without additional functions, and its fixed position, requiring the user to turn their head to check the UI/UX, which caused discomfort and led to lower responses. For the expertise category, the average score for the three questions was 3.84, with a standard deviation of 1.06. Considering that the average score for all questions was above 3.8, this suggests that the simulator follows the process of maxillofacial reconstruction model creation in a manner similar to real life and that the reconstruction model has potential clinical applicability. For the educational usefulness category, the average score for the four questions was 3.85, with a standard deviation of 0.94. The average score for all questions was above 3.8, indicating that the simulator effectively represents the maxillofacial reconstruction process and can be used for educational purposes. Additionally, the students showed interest in VR simulators for other medical fields. Lastly, regarding subjective feedback on the simulator, students reported fatigue from wearing the HMD, symptoms of eye dryness and motion sickness, and difficulty with initial object manipulation. These responses appear to stem from the students' lack of experience with VR content and equipment. It is expected that these issues will improve with repeated exposure to VR technology. Next, to ensure the reliability of the students' questionnaire responses, [PERSON]'s kappa statistics were calculated, including the kappa value, asymptotic standard error, Z-value, and 95% confidence interval.