Abstract
To investigate the attitude of clinicians in Saudi Arabia towards dental implant treatment using different implant surgery approaches.
This cross-sectional observational study was conducted using a web-based questionnaire wherein 56 clinicians ranked their attitude toward computer-guided implant surgery (CGIS) and conventional non-computer-guided surgery (non-CGIS) in terms of advantages, disadvantages and clinical indications. Statistical analysis was conducted by the Spearman correlation test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, at a significance level of
<0.05.
The survey results indicated that the most significant advantages of CGIS from the participants' perspective were low levels of stress during surgery (
= 0.003) and minimal requirement of surgical skills (
= 0.04). Notably, the advantages of accurate outcome and predictable flapless surgery were not considered significantly higher for CGIS than for non-CGIS (
= 0.2 and 0.7, respectively). The high treatment cost was the most significant disadvantage of CGIS when compared to non-CGIS (
= 0.002), and complete edentulism was the most recommended clinical condition for CGIS.
Clinicians acknowledged the advantages of CGIS over non-CGIS, especially in complete edentulism. The significant advantages of CGIS were the clinician's state of low stress and minimal skills required rather than the patient's interest in treatment predictability. CGIS is an attractive approach for most participants, in spite of the low rate of actual use.