Background Geometric and spatial relationships are essential for dental practice as a reference. Most manual procedures depend on the operator’s practice and ability, and they are non-assisted and non-controlled, depending on trial and error.
Aim Describing the effectiveness of a disruptive innovation aimed at creating unwired technology (clinical surveyor device (CSD)) for assisting an operator’s manual skills/dexterity and controlling applications for training and clinical use in several areas of dentistry: rehabilitation, implants surgery and orthodontics.
Materials and methods Testing the device involved 25 odontology specialists and 20 10th semester undergraduate students and postgraduate residents. A paired Student t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for comparison to ascertain whether there was a statistically significant difference when performing procedures with and without using a CSD. Biplot cluster analysis was used for understanding data structure and its variability, capturing variables and individuals’ inter-relationships.
Result A significant difference was found when using a CSD, which rejected the null hypothesis. There was no significant difference (p value of >0.05 regarding operators (experienced maxillofacial, periodontics and rehabilitators, periodoncy and rehabilitation programme final-year residents and 10th semester undergraduate students).
Conclusion The CSD’s advantages regarding accuracy would be related to controlling real hand position, enabling better-assisted operator skills and thereby creating confidence during rehabilitation/implant/orthodontic procedures.
- manual skill
- computer-aided manufacturing
- dental implant
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors LMRA planned the study, contributed to the acquisition for funding, conduction and reporting the work described in the article. LGLP and LMRR contributed to the execution of this study and collaborated with first draft. EPU have contributed to the study methodology and statistical analysis. All authors provided critical evaluation and approved the final manuscript.
Funding Funding work leading to this publication was funded by grants from Innovation Found funded work leading to this publication (code FI/004-2017).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.