Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Dental Practitioners towards Computer Guided Implant Surgery in Central India: A Cross-sectional Survey

Introduction: Incorporating digital technologies has been recently gaining popularity because of the known benefits like increased accuracy, predictable outcomes and reduction in treatment time. It is very important for the clinicians to analyse the necessity of incorporating these digital approaches into routine patient care. Aim: To assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of dental practitioners towards Computer Guided Implant Surgery (CGIS) in Central India. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics at the Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India, to assess the attitude towards CGIS and Non Computer Guided Implant Surgery (non CGIS) by analysing responses from a total of 100 dental practitioners. A questionnaire consisting of 30 questions was circulated through a web based program. Analysis was done using descriptive and inferential statistics using the Kruskal Wallis test and the Mann Whitney U test. Responses were collected and analysis was performed using Statistical Analysis for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 27.0 version. Results: Around 100 participants were included in the survey. 52 participants were female and the remaining 48 were male. Among all 97 (97%) participants were interested in CGIS but only 40 (40%) participants had any previous experience with the technology. Increased accuracy (z=7.08, p=0.0001) and predictability (z=10.64,p=0.0001) were considered the significant advantages by the participants. The overall difference in attitudes of CGIS and non CGIS users towards increased accuracy of CGIS was not statistically significant. (z=0.394, p=0.694) Conclusion: The advantages of CGIS over non CGIS were acknowledged by majority of the practitioners. The major advantages were related to the greater accuracy and predictability associated with CGIS whereas the limited accessibility and higher cost were the most common disadvantages. The specialisation and the clinical experience did not significantly affect the attitude of the practitioners.