## 3 Results  
The results of the attitudinal survey are shown in Figure 4 All participants responded that the computer-based 3D simulation method is effective for visualizing anatomical structures and that it enhances memorization of the occlusal adjustment concept. Most of the participants agreed that  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline  & **2D Presentation Method** & **3D Simulation Method** \\ \hline
**Material** & book, paper sheet, 2D figures & computer, software, 3D graphic models \\
**Contents** & descriptive & descriptive, manipulative, analytic \\
**Visospatial information** & static & dynamic \\
**Teaching method** & teacher-centered & student-centered \\
**Cost for facility** & low & moderate to high \\
**Learning method** & observation & virtual practice \\
**Recommend group size** & NS & small to medium \\
**Preparation** & NS & learning how to operate software \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
NS: not specific.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Characteristics of the teaching system used for occlusal education.  
Figure 3: Three-dimensional visualization and simulation method with 3D models.  
the 3D simulation is useful for understanding the functional movement of the mandible. They also agreed that the simulation was easy to perform using the computer software. In the class participation question, four out of five participants responded that the 3D simulation facilitated active participation. No student made a negative response to all questions for the efficacy of the 3D simulation method on occlusal education.  
The examination results show that the 3D simulation group produced significantly higher scores than the 2D presentation group in the questions concerning the occlusal adjustment in centric relation (\(P=0.034\)). Conversely, regarding the questions about occlusal adjustment in eccentric relation, there was no statistically significant difference in the test scores between the two teaching groups (\(P=0.403\)). The overall score of the examination was higher in the group with the 3D simulation method than the group with the 2D presentation method (Table 2). The grading of numeric scores in the 2D presentation group showed a skewed distribution to the right, and the portion of grade F was relatively high (Figure 5). The 3D simulation method results produced a normal distribution in the score with a large portion of the A grade.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Question**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Teaching Method**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(P\)} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-4}  & **2D Presentation** & & **3D Simulation** \\ \hline Centric & 77.0 \(\pm\) 9.5 & 82.6 \(\pm\) 10.3 & 0.034 \\ Eccentric & 66.0 \(\pm\) 16.7 & 70.3 \(\pm\) 22.6 & 0.403 \\ Whole & 72.9 \(\pm\) 10.0 & 78.0 \(\pm\) 11.0 & 0.064 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Mean and standard deviation of the examination results in groups by different teaching methods.  
Figure 4: Attitudinal survey results on the efficacy of the computer-based 3D simulation method.  
The correlation coefficient \(r\) was calculated as \(-0.48\), representing the absence of linear correlation between the survey and examination outcomes. The scatterplot shows a weak and nonlinear association between the two outcomes (Figure 6).