CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04950491Updated Jul 6, 2021

Patient-reported Outcome Measures Comparing Static Computer-aided Implant Surgery and Conventional Implant Surgery

An interventional study of Modified Dental Anxiety Score (MDAS) questionnaire and Pain questionnaire in Dental Implantation, Postoperative Pain and Computer-assisted Surgery, sponsored by Mahidol University. Completed at 1 site in Thailand. Open to participants aged 25 Years to 80 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-07-06.

Sponsored by Mahidol University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 1 year 11 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Jul 2019, registered Jun 2021).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
40
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
25 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare PROMs in patients receiving single tooth replacement in posterior sites by s-CAIS and CIS.

Read the detailed description

Since current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) evidence related to static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) compared with conventional implant surgery (CIS), particularly in partial edentulous patients, were still limited. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare PROMs in patients receiving single tooth replacement in posterior sites by s-CAIS and CIS.

02

Conditions studied

  • Dental Implantation
  • Postoperative Pain
  • Computer-assisted Surgery
  • Patient Outcome Assessment
  • Dental Anxiety
  • Quality of Life
  • Oral Health

Keywords

  • Clinical Research
  • Dental Implant
  • Static Computer-Aided Implant Surgery (s-CAIS)
  • Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)
  • Dental Anxiety
  • Pain
  • Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL)
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Mahidol University is the lead sponsor of 730 studies on the registry; 118 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
25 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Healthy or well-controlled systemic disease (ASA classification I,II)
  • A partially edentulous ridge in the premolar-molar region with existing two-sided interproximal as well as antagonist contacts
  • No sign of acute oral infection
  • Periodontally healthy (or successfully treated)
  • More than 2 mm of keratinized gingiva at the site of surgery
  • Sufficient bony ridge for implant placement with or without simultaneous bone grafting

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Smoking more than ten cigarettes per day
  • Pregnancy
  • Psychiatric disorder
  • History of radiation therapy at head and neck area and chemotherapy
  • Bony pathologies, namely osseous dysplasia, odontogenic cyst, tumor
  • History of soft tissue grafting at the prospective implant site
  • Inadequate bony ridge with the need of bone augmentation prior to implant placement
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Care provider, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
40 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Test group (s-CAIS)

    The test group workflow used a fully computer-guided implant surgical protocol.

    Other: Modified Dental Anxiety Score (MDAS) questionnaire · Other: Pain questionnaire · Other: Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) questionnaire

  • Other
    Control group (CIS)

    The control group workflow used a conventional implant surgical protocol.

    Other: Modified Dental Anxiety Score (MDAS) questionnaire · Other: Pain questionnaire · Other: Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) questionnaire

Interventions

  • OtherModified Dental Anxiety Score (MDAS) questionnaire

    MDAS was used to measure the patients' anxiety toward dental treatment before implant surgery (Humphris, Dyer, \&Robinson, 2009). Originally, the MDAS questionnaire included five questions answered with a 5-category Likert scale. The original MDAS questionnaire does not cover anxiety toward implant surgery. Therefore, a question enquiring about patients' feelings towards implant surgery was added.

  • OtherPain questionnaire

    Patients were asked to describe the worst pain feeling using a standard 10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the proportion of time spent in severe pain using a 5 category Likert scale. The number of analgesics taken per day was also asked.

  • OtherOral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) questionnaire

    The OHRQoL comprises 14 questions covering problems the patient may in three main categories: oral function, daily activity, and post-operative symptoms (Chaushu, Becker, Zeltser, Vasker, \& Chaushu, 2004). Patients answered using a 5-category Likert scale.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change of post-operative pain for 7 days: Visual Analog Scale

    Patients were asked to describe the worst post-operative pain feeling using a standard 10 cm Visual Analog Scale.

    Time frame: Patients were instructed to answer every day for 7 days starting from the day of surgery 1 hour before bedtime.

  2. Change of the proportion of time spent in severe pain for 7 days: 5-category Likert scale

    Patients were asked to describe the proportion of time spent in severe pain using 5-category Likert scale (None, Low, Moderate, High, Very high).

    Time frame: Patients were instructed to answer every day for 7 days starting from the day of surgery 1 hour before bedtime.

  3. Change of the analgesics taken per day for 7 days: the number of tablets per day

    Patients were asked to describe the number of analgesics taken per day.

    Time frame: Patients were instructed to answer every day for 7 days starting from the day of surgery 1 hour before bedtime.

  4. Change of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) for 7 days: 5-category Likert scale

    The OHRQoL questionnaire comprises 14 questions covering problems the patient may in three main categories: oral function, daily activity, and post-operative symptoms derived from Chaushu's study (Chaushu, Becker, Zeltser, Vasker, \& Chaushu, 2004). Patients answered this questionnaire using a 5-category Likert scale (Not at all, Very little, A little, Quite a lot, Very much).

    Time frame: Patients were instructed to answer the OHRQoL every day for 7 days starting from the day of surgery 1 hour before bedtime.

Secondary outcomes

  1. The Modified Dental Anxiety Score (MDAS)

    The MDAS was used to measure patient anxiety toward dental treatment (Humphris, Dyer, \& Robinson, 2009). The MDAS consists of five questions answered with a 5-category Likert scale, ranging from 'not anxious' to 'extremely anxious'. The original MDAS questionnaire does not cover anxiety toward implant surgery. Therefore, a question enquiring about patients' feelings towards implant surgery was added.

    Time frame: 1 day (Patients completed the modified MDAS once, while waiting for the surgery in the waiting room.)

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University
    Ratchathewi, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Arisan V, Karabuda CZ, Ozdemir T. Implant surgery using bone- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides in totally edentulous jaws: surgical and post-operative outcomes of computer-aided vs. standard techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Sep;21(9):980-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01957.x. Epub 2010 May 24. PubMed 20497439 ↗
  • Bielemann AM, Marcello-Machado RM, Del Bel Cury AA, Faot F. Systematic review of wound healing biomarkers in peri-implant crevicular fluid during osseointegration. Arch Oral Biol. 2018 May;89:107-128. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.02.013. Epub 2018 Feb 22. PubMed 29510331 ↗
  • Buser D, Chappuis V, Kuchler U, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Buser R, Cavusoglu Y, Belser UC. Long-term stability of early implant placement with contour augmentation. J Dent Res. 2013 Dec;92(12 Suppl):176S-82S. doi: 10.1177/0022034513504949. Epub 2013 Oct 24. PubMed 24158332 ↗
  • Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61. PubMed 15635945 ↗
  • Calvert M, Brundage M, Jacobsen PB, Schunemann HJ, Efficace F. The CONSORT Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) extension: implications for clinical trials and practice. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Oct 29;11:184. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-184. PubMed 24168680 ↗
  • Coolidge T, Hillstead MB, Farjo N, Weinstein P, Coldwell SE. Additional psychometric data for the Spanish Modified Dental Anxiety Scale, and psychometric data for a Spanish version of the Revised Dental Beliefs Survey. BMC Oral Health. 2010 May 13;10:12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-10-12. PubMed 20465835 ↗
  • D'haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, Tahmaseb A. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):121-133. doi: 10.1111/prd.12175. PubMed 28000275 ↗
  • De Bruyn H, Raes S, Matthys C, Cosyn J. The current use of patient-centered/reported outcomes in implant dentistry: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 11:45-56. doi: 10.1111/clr.12634. PubMed 26385620 ↗
  • Feine J, Abou-Ayash S, Al Mardini M, de Santana RB, Bjelke-Holtermann T, Bornstein MM, Braegger U, Cao O, Cordaro L, Eycken D, Fillion M, Gebran G, Huynh-Ba G, Joda T, Levine R, Mattheos N, Oates TW, Abd-Ul-Salam H, Santosa R, Shahdad S, Storelli S, Sykaras N, Trevino Santos A, Stephanie Webersberger U, Williams MAH, Wilson TG Jr, Wismeijer D, Wittneben JG, Yao CJ, Zubiria JPV. Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:270-275. doi: 10.1111/clr.13299. PubMed 30328187 ↗
  • Fortin T, Bosson JL, Isidori M, Blanchet E. Effect of flapless surgery on pain experienced in implant placement using an image-guided system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):298-304. PubMed 16634502 ↗
  • Giri J, Pokharel PR, Gyawali R, Bhattarai B. Translation and Validation of Modified Dental Anxiety Scale: The Nepali Version. Int Sch Res Notices. 2017 Jan 29;2017:5495643. doi: 10.1155/2017/5495643. eCollection 2017. PubMed 28251175 ↗
  • Humphris G, King K. The prevalence of dental anxiety across previous distressing experiences. J Anxiety Disord. 2011 Mar;25(2):232-6. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.09.007. Epub 2010 Sep 19. PubMed 20952156 ↗
  • Humphris GM, Morrison T, Lindsay SJ. The Modified Dental Anxiety Scale: validation and United Kingdom norms. Community Dent Health. 1995 Sep;12(3):143-50. PubMed 7584581 ↗
  • Iqbal MK, Kim S. A review of factors influencing treatment planning decisions of single-tooth implants versus preserving natural teeth with nonsurgical endodontic therapy. J Endod. 2008 May;34(5):519-29. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.01.002. PubMed 18436028 ↗
  • Joda T, Derksen W, Wittneben JG, Kuehl S. Static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), economics and surgical complications: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:359-373. doi: 10.1111/clr.13136. PubMed 30328203 ↗
  • McGrath C, Lam O, Lang N. An evidence-based review of patient-reported outcome measures in dental implant research among dentate subjects. J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Feb;39 Suppl 12:193-201. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01841.x. PubMed 22533956 ↗
  • Nkenke E, Eitner S, Radespiel-Troger M, Vairaktaris E, Neukam FW, Fenner M. Patient-centred outcomes comparing transmucosal implant placement with an open approach in the maxilla: a prospective, non-randomized pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Apr;18(2):197-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01335.x. PubMed 17348884 ↗
  • Sancho-Puchades M, Alfaro FH, Naenni N, Jung R, Hammerle C, Schneider D. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Conventional And Computer-Assisted Implant Planning and Placement in Partially Edentulous Patients. Part 2: Patient Related Outcome Measures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019 Jul/Aug;39(4):e99-e110. doi: 10.11607/prd.4145. PubMed 31226187 ↗
  • Sculean A, Gruber R, Bosshardt DD. Soft tissue wound healing around teeth and dental implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Apr;41 Suppl 15:S6-22. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12206. PubMed 24641001 ↗
  • Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000 Apr;71(4):546-9. doi: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546. PubMed 10807116 ↗
  • Vercruyssen M, Fortin T, Widmann G, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Different techniques of static/dynamic guided implant surgery: modalities and indications. Periodontol 2000. 2014 Oct;66(1):214-27. doi: 10.1111/prd.12056. PubMed 25123770 ↗
  • Vercruyssen M, van de Wiele G, Teughels W, Naert I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Implant- and patient-centred outcomes of guided surgery, a 1-year follow-up: An RCT comparing guided surgery with conventional implant placement. J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Dec;41(12):1154-60. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12305. Epub 2014 Oct 11. PubMed 25197015 ↗
  • von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 16;147(8):573-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010. Erratum In: Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 15;148(2):168. PubMed 17938396 ↗
  • Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flugge T, Fokas G, Tahmaseb A, Bechelli D, Bohner L, Bornstein M, Burgoyne A, Caram S, Carmichael R, Chen CY, Coucke W, Derksen W, Donos N, El Kholy K, Evans C, Fehmer V, Fickl S, Fragola G, Gimenez Gonzales B, Gholami H, Hashim D, Hui Y, Kokat A, Vazouras K, Kuhl S, Lanis A, Leesungbok R, van der Meer J, Liu Z, Sato T, De Souza A, Scarfe WC, Tosta M, van Zyl P, Vach K, Vaughn V, Vucetic M, Wang P, Wen B, Wu V. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:436-442. doi: 10.1111/clr.13309. PubMed 30328201 ↗
  • Yuan S, Freeman R, Lahti S, Lloyd-Williams F, Humphris G. Some psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Modified Dental Anxiety Scale with cross validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Mar 25;6:22. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-22. PubMed 18364045 ↗
  • Chaushu S, Becker A, Zeltser R, Vasker N, Chaushu G. Patients' perceptions of recovery after surgical exposure of impacted maxillary teeth treated with an open-eruption surgical-orthodontic technique. Eur J Orthod. 2004 Dec;26(6):591-6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.6.591. PubMed 15650068 ↗
  • Humphris GM, Dyer TA, Robinson PG. The modified dental anxiety scale: UK general public population norms in 2008 with further psychometrics and effects of age. BMC Oral Health. 2009 Aug 26;9:20. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-9-20. PubMed 19709436 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 6, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04950491
Lead sponsor
Mahidol University
Collaborators
ITI Foundation
Responsible party
Akarin Santivitoonvong (Doctor of Dental Surgery, Mahidol University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 6, 2021
Start date
Jul 9, 2019
Primary completion
Nov 27, 2020
Completion
Mar 11, 2021
Last update
Jul 6, 2021

Study contacts

Chatchai Kunavisarut, DDS
study chair · Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion