Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2014.30.1.9

The comparative study of user satisfaction on various implant engine system  

Lee, Du-Hyeong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
Lee, Kyu-Bok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science / v.30, no.1, 2014 , pp. 9-15 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: Implant engine system is composed of the handpiece, micromotor, control box and foot switch. The aim of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction of the implant engine systems in terms of convenience-design and to examine the relation with the experience of implant surgery. Materials and Methods: Three implant systems were evaluated: SurgicXT/X-SG20L, INTRAsurg300/CL3-09, XIP10/CRB26LX. For this comparative study, 30 dentists were included and the satisfaction was measured using a structured questionnaire. One-way analysis of the variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression analysis were used within and between the groups. Results: Total satisfaction differed from each other (P < 0.05). The convenience score was more associated with the total satisfaction than design score. Moreover, the implant surgery experience affected several assessments. Conclusion: Collectively, in a cross-sectional study model, the design of implant system significantly affects its total satisfaction and the surgery experience can be influential factor in the evaluation of implant engine system.
Keywords
implant engine system; convenience; design; satisfaction; implant surgery experience;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Grochulla F, Vieweg U. Surgical motor systems in spinal surgery. In: Vieweg U, Grochulla F, editors. Manual of spine surgery. Berlin; Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. p. 69-74.
2 Campbell SC. Are friends electric?: a review of the electric handpiece in clinical dental practice. Dent Update 2013;40:194-6, 199-200.   DOI
3 Christensen GJ. Are electric handpieces an improvement? J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133:1433-4.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Ercoli C, Rotella M, Funkenbusch PD, Russell S, Feng C. In vitro comparison of the cutting efficiency and temperature production of ten different rotary cutting instruments. Part II: electric handpiece and comparison with turbine. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:319-31.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Kenyon BJ, Van Zyl I, Louie KG. Comparison of cavity preparation quality using an electric motor handpiece and an air turbine dental handpiece. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:1101-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Uicker JJ, Pennock GR, Shigley JE. Theory of machines and mechanisms. 3rd ed. New York; Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 252-70.
7 International Ergonomics Association. Definition and domains of ergonomics. Available from: http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html (updated 2013 Dec 5).
8 Yoon JG. Who do UI designers work for?. IDCC Proceeding 2007;7:33-41.
9 Gupta A, Ankola AV, Hebbal M. Dental ergonomics to combat musculoskeletal disorders: a review. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2013;19:561-71.   DOI
10 Nkenke E, Vairaktaris E, Bauersachs A, Eitner S, Budach A, Knipfer C, Stelzle F. Acceptance of virtual dental implant planning software in an undergraduate curriculum: a pilot study. BMC Med Educ 2012;12:90.   DOI
11 Lijphart A. II. The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies 1975;8:158-77.   DOI