1. Nance ET, Lanning SK, Gunsolley JC. Dental anatomy carving computer-assisted instruction program: an assessment of student performance and perceptions. J Dent Educ 2009; 7: 972-9. 2. Cook DA. The research we still are not doing: an agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Acad Med 2005; 80: 541-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200506000-00005 3. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006; 81(3): 207-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002 4. Nieder GL, Nagy F. Analysis of medical students' use of web-based resources for a gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat 2002; 15:409-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.10067 5. Kneebone R, Kidd J, Nestel D, Asvall S, Paraskeva P, Darzi A. An innovative model for teaching and learning clinical procedures. Med Educ 2002; 36: 628-34. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01261.x 6. Humphris GM, Kaney S. The Objective Structured Video Exam for assessment of communication skills. Med Educ 2000; 34: 939-45. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00792.x 7. Latchman HA, Latchman SM. Lectures on demand in ALN: enhancing the online learning experience. JALN 2001, 5: 85-98. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i1.1888 8. Billings-Gagliardi S, Mazor KM. Student decisions about lecture attendance: do electronic course materials matter? Acad Med 2007; 82: S73-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31813e651e 9. Solomon DJ, Ferenchick GS, Laird-Fick HS, Kavanaugh K. A randomized trial comparing digital and live lecture formats [ISRCTN40455708. BMC Med Educ 2004; 4:27.https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-4-27 10. Spickard AI, Alrajeh N, Cordray D, Gigante J. Learning about screening using an online or live lecture. J Gen Int Med 2002; 17: 540-5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10731.x [DOI:10.1002/j.0022-0337.2009.73.8.tb04786.x]

2. Tello R, Davison BD, Blickman JG. The virtual course: delivery of live and recorded continuing medical education material over the Internet. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1519-21. [DOI:10.2214/ajr.174.6.1741519]

3. Wildinson TJ, Smith JD, Margolis SA, Gupta TS, Prideaux DJ. Structure assessment using multiple patient scenarios by video-conference in rural settings. Med Ed 2008, 42: 480-7. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03011.x]

4. Saverino D. Teaching anatomy at the time of COVID-19. Clin Anat 2021;34: 1128. [DOI:10.1002/ca.23616]

5. EbadiFardAzar G. Assessment of medical students' potential on understanding the concepts of English educational CDs. Journal of Inflammatory Diseases. 2005; 9:63-6. [In Persian]

6. Mahmud W, Hyder O, Butt J, Aftab A. Dissection videos do not improve anatomy examination scores. Anat Sci Educ 2011; 4: 16-21. [DOI:10.1002/ase.194]

7. Topping DB. Gross anatomy videos: student satisfaction, usage, and effect on student performance in a condensed curriculum. Anat Sci Educ 2014; 7: 273-9 [DOI:10.1002/ase.1405]

8. Langfield T, Colthorpe K, Ainscough L. Online instructional anatomy videos: Student usage, self-efficacy, and performance in upper limb regional anatomy assessment. Anat Sci Educ 2018; 11: 461-70. [DOI:10.1002/ase.1756]

9. Grosser J, Bientzle M, Shiozawa T, Hirt B, Kimmerle J. Acquiring Clinical Knowledge from an Online Video Platform: A Randomized Controlled Experiment on the Relevance of Integrating Anatomical Information and Clinical Practice. Anat Sci Educ 2019; 12: 478-84. [DOI:10.1002/ase.1841]

10. Gholipour Moghaddam F, Yaghoubi Y, Salmalian Z, Haryalchi K, Farahpour R, Heidari F. The Role of Drawing's Anatomy in Promoting Nursing Students Anatomy Education in Para- Medical Nursing -Midwifery Faculty in GUMS. RME 2014; 6: 44-50. [In Persian] [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.rme.6.2.44]

11. Pollock W, Rea PM. The Use of Social Media in Anatomical and Health Professional Education: A Systematic Review. Adv Exp Med Biol 2019;1205: 149-70. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-31904-5_10]

12. Pickering JD, Bickerdike SR. Medical student use of Facebook to support preparation for anatomy assessments. Anat Sci Educ 2017; 10: 205-14. [DOI:10.1002/ase.1663]

13. Jaffar AA, Eladl MA. Engagement Patterns of High and Low Academic Performers on Facebook Anatomy Pages. J Med Educ Curric Dev 2016; 3: JMECD. S36646. [DOI:10.4137/JMECD.S36646]

14. Rai R, Shereen R, Protas M, Greaney C, Brooks KN, Iwanaga J, et al. Social media and cadaveric dissection: A survey study. Clin Anat 2019; 32: 1033-41. [DOI:10.1002/ca.23421]

15. Hennessy CM, Kirkpatrick E, Smith CF, Border S. Social media and anatomy education: Using twitter to enhance the student learning experience in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2016; 9: 505-15. [DOI:10.1002/ase.1610]

16. Mustafa AG, Taha NR, Alshboul OA, Alsalem M, Malki MI. Using YouTube to Learn Anatomy: Perspectives of Jordanian Medical Students. Biomed Res Int 2020; 2020: 6861416. [DOI:10.1155/2020/6861416]

17. Barry DS, Marzouk F, Chulak-Oglu K, Bennett D, Tierney P, O'Keeffe GW. Anatomy education for the YouTube generation. Anat Sci Educ 2016; 9(1): 90-6. [DOI:10.1002/ase.1550]

18. Azuma R. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1997; 6, 355-85. [DOI:10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355]

19. Bogomolova K, van der Ham IJM, Dankbaar MEW, van den Broek WW, Hovius SER, van der Hage JA, et al. The effect of stereoscopic augmented reality visualization on learning anatomy and the modifying effect of visual-spatial abilities: A double-center randomized controlled trial. Anat Sci Educ 2020; 13: 558-67. [DOI:10.1002/ase.1941]

20. Peterson DC, Mlynarczyk GS. Analysis of traditional versus three-dimensional augmented curriculum on anatomical learning outcome measures. Anat Sci Educ 2016; 9: 529-36. [DOI:10.1002/ase.1612]

21. Küçük S, Kapakin S, Göktaş Y. Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: Effects on achievement and cognitive load. Anat Sci Educ 2016; 9(5): 411-21. [DOI:10.1002/ase.1603]

22. Izard SG, Juanes Méndez JA, Palomera PR. Virtual Reality Educational Tool for Human Anatomy. J Med Syst 2017; 41: 76. [DOI:10.1007/s10916-017-0723-6]

23. Zhao J, Xu X, Jiang H, Ding Y. The effectiveness of virtual reality-based technology on anatomy teaching: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Med Educ 2020; 20: 127. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-020-1994-z]

24. Kockro RA, Amaxopoulou C, Killeen T, Wagner W, Reisch R, Schwandt E, et al. Stereoscopic neuroanatomy lectures using a three-dimensional virtual reality environment. Ann Anat 2015; 201: 91-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.aanat.2015.05.006]

25. Birbara NS, Sammut C, Pather N. Virtual reality in anatomy: A pilot study evaluating different delivery modalities. Anat Sci Educ 2020; 13(4): 445-57. [DOI:10.1002/ase.1921]

26. Baguley R. 3D printing materials: The pros and cons of each type. Tom's guide 2017. Available from: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/3d-printing-materials, news-24392.html

27. Fasel JH, Aguiar D, Kiss-Bodolay D, Montet X, Kalangos A, Stimec BV, et al. Adapting anatomy teaching to surgical trends: a combination of classical dissection, medical imaging, and 3D-printing technologies. Surg Radiol Anat 2016; 38: 361-7. [DOI:10.1007/s00276-015-1588-3]

28. Garas M, Vaccarezza M, Newland G, McVay-Doornbusch K, Hasani J. 3D-Printed specimens as a valuable tool in anatomy education: A pilot study. Ann Anat 2018; 219: 57-64. [DOI:10.1016/j.aanat.2018.05.006]

29. Chytas D, Johnson EO, Piagkou M, Tsakotos G, Babis GC, Nikolaou VS, et al. Three-dimensional printing in anatomy teaching: current evidence. Surg Radiol Anat 2020; 42: 835-41. [DOI:10.1007/s00276-020-02470-2]