Exploring Clinical Decision-Making in Static Computer-Assisted Guided Implant Placement: A Survey of Clinicians in Australia and New Zealand.

Amen, M; Ball, J; Sun, J; Dawson, A

Exploring Clinical Decision-Making in Static Computer-Assisted Guided Implant Placement: A Survey of Clinicians in Australia and New Zealand.

Amen, M Ball, J Sun, J

Dawson, A

Permalink

Publisher:: WILEY
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Aust Dent J, 2026
Issue Date:: 2026-01-29

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (274 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Amen, M
dc.contributor.author	Ball, J
dc.contributor.author	Sun, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0097-2438
dc.contributor.author	Dawson, A
dc.date.accessioned	2026-03-10T01:52:29Z
dc.date.available	2026-01-19
dc.date.available	2026-03-10T01:52:29Z
dc.date.issued	2026-01-29
dc.identifier.citation	Aust Dent J, 2026
dc.identifier.issn	0045-0421
dc.identifier.issn	1834-7819
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/193807
dc.description.abstract	BACKGROUND: Static computer-assisted guided implant placement (sCAIP) has been shown to enhance accuracy and predictability; however, little is known about the multifactorial decision-making processes impacting use among clinicians. METHODS: An exploratory cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed to implant practitioners across Australia and New Zealand, including general dentists and specialists (periodontists, prosthodontists, oral surgeons, and oral and maxillofacial surgeons) involved in implant placement. Items covered demographics, training profiles, clinical experience, utilisation patterns, and attitudes towards sCAIP, with free-text reflections. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and t-tests; qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three respondents completed the survey, with 90.9% reporting current use of sCAIP. Sixteen respondents (48.5%) were classified as analytical decision-makers and 17 (51.5%) as intuitive. Factor analysis identified seven components that explained 84.2% of the variance in decision-making, including surgical complexity and soft tissue conditions, case timing, aesthetic site sensitivity, cost, anatomical risk, training exposure, and clinical experience. Internal consistency across items was high (Cronbach's alpha, α = 0.95). Analytical decision-makers placed significantly more weight on anatomical risk and bone quality compared to intuitive decision-makers (p = 0.038, d = 0.93). Intuitive decision-makers reported higher levels of training exposure (p = 0.04, d = 0.80). Thematic analysis revealed three key influences on sCAIP use: clinician capability, surgical planning and risk mitigation, and restorative outcomes. In addition, several barriers were identified including financial cost, workflow integration, and attitudinal factors. CONCLUSION: Clinicians with an analytical decision-making style placed greater emphasis on anatomical risk and were more likely to adopt sCAIP in complex or high-risk cases. Because intuitive clinicians reported higher training exposure, education alone did not explain these patterns, indicating that cognitive style and risk appraisal are central determinants of sCAIP adoption.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	WILEY
dc.relation.ispartof	Aust Dent J
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1111/adj.70042
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1103 Clinical Sciences, 1105 Dentistry, 1117 Public Health and Health Services
dc.subject.classification	Dentistry
dc.subject.classification	3203 Dentistry
dc.title	Exploring Clinical Decision-Making in Static Computer-Assisted Guided Implant Placement: A Survey of Clinicians in Australia and New Zealand.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.location.activity	Australia
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences
utslib.for	1105 Dentistry
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2026-03-10T01:52:28Z
pubs.publication-status	Published online

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Static computer-assisted guided implant placement (sCAIP) has been shown to enhance accuracy and predictability; however, little is known about the multifactorial decision-making processes impacting use among clinicians. METHODS: An exploratory cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed to implant practitioners across Australia and New Zealand, including general dentists and specialists (periodontists, prosthodontists, oral surgeons, and oral and maxillofacial surgeons) involved in implant placement. Items covered demographics, training profiles, clinical experience, utilisation patterns, and attitudes towards sCAIP, with free-text reflections. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and t-tests; qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three respondents completed the survey, with 90.9% reporting current use of sCAIP. Sixteen respondents (48.5%) were classified as analytical decision-makers and 17 (51.5%) as intuitive. Factor analysis identified seven components that explained 84.2% of the variance in decision-making, including surgical complexity and soft tissue conditions, case timing, aesthetic site sensitivity, cost, anatomical risk, training exposure, and clinical experience. Internal consistency across items was high (Cronbach's alpha, α = 0.95). Analytical decision-makers placed significantly more weight on anatomical risk and bone quality compared to intuitive decision-makers (p = 0.038, d = 0.93). Intuitive decision-makers reported higher levels of training exposure (p = 0.04, d = 0.80). Thematic analysis revealed three key influences on sCAIP use: clinician capability, surgical planning and risk mitigation, and restorative outcomes. In addition, several barriers were identified including financial cost, workflow integration, and attitudinal factors. CONCLUSION: Clinicians with an analytical decision-making style placed greater emphasis on anatomical risk and were more likely to adopt sCAIP in complex or high-risk cases. Because intuitive clinicians reported higher training exposure, education alone did not explain these patterns, indicating that cognitive style and risk appraisal are central determinants of sCAIP adoption.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/193807