Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Perceptions of New Robotic Technologies in Clinical Restorative Dentistry

  • Patient Facing Systems
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patient perception research has failed to focus on burgeoning technology within the dental field. Specifically, researchers have yet to focus on developing robotic technologies which are being utilized by dentists to help perform certain procedures with added precision and route mapping. The current study attempts to fill the gap created by a lack of intersection between dental technology research, consumer perceptions research, and automation research. The current research takes a two-study approach, with study 1 investigating if gender or price of the procedure affects willingness to undergo a robotic dental procedure. Study 2 further investigates this phenomenon, identifying ten separate types of dental procedures (ranging from minimally invasive to extremely invasive) to further understand consumer perceptions. Results indicate that females are less willing to undergo a robotic dental procedure, and that participants in general are more willing to undergo a procedure if it is half price than if it full price. Willingness is influenced by gender and the type of procedure being performed – participants were less willing to undergo invasive procedures such as gum surgery than noninvasive procedures such as teeth whitening. These results, and their theoretical and practical significance are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kumar, P., Dixit, P., Kalaivani, V., and Rajapandian, K., Future advances in robotic dentistry. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 7, 2017. https://doi.org/10.15406/jdhodt.2017.07.00241.

  2. Li, J., Shen, Z., Tian Xu, W., Hang Lam, W., Chiu Hsung, R., Nang Pow, E., Kosuge, K., and Wang, Z., A compact dental robotic system using soft bracing technique. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 4:1271–1278, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2019.2894864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. König, M., and Neumayr, L., Users’ resistance towards radical innovations: The case of the self-driving car. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 44:42–52, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Broadbent, E., Kuo, I. H., Lee, Y. I., Rabindran, J., Kerse, N., Stafford, R., and MacDonald, B. A., Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot. Telemed. and e-Health. 16(5):608–613, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fink, C., Uhlmann, L., Hofmann, M., Forschner, A., Eigentler, T., Garbe, C., Enk, A., and Haenssle, H. A., Patient acceptance and trust in automated computer-assisted diagnosis of melanoma with dermatofluoroscopy. JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft. 16(7):854–859, 2018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rawtiya, M., Verma, K., Sethi, P., and Loomba, K., Application of robotics in dentistry. Indian J Dent Adv. 6(4):1700–1706, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., and MacDonald, B., Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. Int J of Soc Robot. 1(4):319, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee, J. D., and See, K. A., Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46:50–80, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., and Wickens, C. D., A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst Hum 30(3):286–297, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhattacharya, S., A review of the application of automation technologies in healthcare domain. Res J Pharm Tech 9(12):2343, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2016.00472.8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Camarillo, D. B., Krummel, T. M., and Salisbury, J. K., Robotic technology in surgery: Past, present, and future. Am J Surg 188(4):2–15, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.08.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Looije, R., Neerincx, M. A., and Cnossen, F., Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(6):386–397, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fawzy, A. S., Daood, U., and Matinlinna, J. P., Potential of high-intensity focused ultrasound in resin-dentine bonding. Dent Mater, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.04.001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Galante, R., Figueiredo-Pina, C. G., and Serro, A. P., Additive manufacturing of ceramics for dental applications: A review. Dent Mater 35:825–846, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.02.026.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Giordano, M., Ausiello, P., Martorelli, M., and Sorrentino, R., Reliability of computer designed surgical guides in six implant rehabilitations with two years follow-up. Dent Mater 28(9):e168–e177, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.06.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wu, J., Weir, M. D., Zhang, Q., Zhou, C., Melo, M. A., and Hockin, X., Novel self-healing dental resin with microcapsules of polymerizable triethylene glycol dimethacrylate and N,N-dihydroxyethyl-p-toluidine. Dent Mater 32(2):294–304, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.11.014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Barbash, G. I., and Glied, S. A., New technology and health care costs—The case of robot-assisted surgery. New Engl J Med 363(8):701–704, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1006602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lazar, J. F., Is the future of robotic surgery mirroring aviation and the glass cockpit? Ann Thorac Surg 102(3):679–680, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.05.068.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gulati, M., Anand, V., Salaria, S. K., Jain, N. K., and Gupta, S., Computerized implant-dentistry: Advances toward automation. J Indian Soc Periodontol 19(1):5–10, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.145781.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bhat, B. D., Bhandary, S., Naik, R., and Shetty, D., Robotics in dentistry: Fiction or reality. J of Dent Res and Rev. 4(3):67, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kumar, P. S., Kumar, S., Savadi, R. C., and John, J., Nanodentistry: A paradigm shift-from fiction to reality. The J of Indian Prosthodont Soc 11(1):1–6, 2011.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim, G., Seo, H., Im, S., Kang, D., Jeong, S., A study on simulator of human-robot cooperative manipulator for dental implant surgery. IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics: 2159–2164, (2009).

  23. Bisler, A., Bockholt, U., and Voss, G., The virtual articulator-applying VR technologies to dentistry. Proc Int Conf Inform Visual:600–602, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2002.1028835.

  24. Brief, J., Haßfeld, S., Boesecke, R., Vogele, M., Krempien, R., Treiber, M., and Mühling, J., Robot assisted dental implantology. Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 4(1):109, 2002 https://ipj.quintessenz.de/index.php?doc=html&abstractID=20795&new_language=de.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yong-de, Z., Jin-gang, J., Pei-jun, L., and Yong, W., Study on the multi-manipulator tooth-arrangement robot for complete denture manufacturing. Ind Robot 38(1):20–26, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1108/01439911111097814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Costa, C., Hebling, J., Scheffel, D., Soares, D., Basso, F., and Ribeiro, A., Methods to evaluate and strategies to improve the biocompatibility of dental materials and operative techniques. Dent Mater 30:769–784, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.04.010.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Markowitz, K., Pretty painful: Why does tooth bleaching hurt? Med Hypotheses 74(5):835–840, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lorsakul, A., Suthakorn, J., Sinthanayothin, C., Tharanon, W., Toward robot-assisted dental surgery: Path generation and navigation system using optical tracking approach. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBIO.2009.4913173.

  29. Murphy T. USA Today. Chew on this: Dental coverage gives protection within limits, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2017/09/15/chew-this-dental-coverage-gives-protection-within-limits/665409001/; 2017 [accessed 10 May 2019].

  30. National Association of Dental Plans (NADP). Who has dental benefits today?, https://www.nadp.org/dental_benefits_basics/dental_bb_1.aspx; 2017 [accessed 10 May 2019].

  31. The Statistics Portal. Percentage of U.S population with dental benefits from 2006 to 2016, https://www.statista.com/statistics/817388/penetration-rate-dental-benefits-among-us-population/; 2019 [accessed 10 May 2019].

  32. Whitney, C. W., Milgrom, P., Conrad, D., Fiset, L., and O'Hara, D., The relationship between price of services, quality of care, and patient time costs for general dental practice. Health Serv Res 31(6):773–790, 1997.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Chakraborty, G., Gaeth, G. J., and Cunningham, M., Understanding consumers' preferences for dental service. Market Health Serv 13(3):48, 1993.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Connell, J., Medical tourism: Sea, sun, sand and… surgery. Tourism Manag 27(6):1093–1100, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Turner, L., Cross-border dental care: ‘dental tourism’ and patient mobility. Br Dent J 204(10):553–554, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Charness, G., and Gneezy, U., Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. J Econ Behav Organ 83(1):50–58, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dwyer, P. D., Gilkeson, J. H., and List, J. A., Gender differences in revealed risk taking: Evidence from mutual fund investors. Econ Lett 76(2):151–158, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(02)00045-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gustafson, P. E., Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01123.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Turner, C., and McClure, R., Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Inj Contr Saf Promot 10(3):123–130, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1076/icsp.10.3.123.14560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Alaiad, A., and Zhou, L., The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An empirical investigation. Int J Med Informat 83(11):825–840, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zineddine M, Arafa N. Attitudes towards robot assisted surgery: UAE context. 9th International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/Innovations.2013.6544414.

  42. Cimperman, M., Brenčič, M., and Trkman, P., Analyzing older users’ home telehealth services acceptance behavior-applying an extended UTAUT model. Int J Med Informat 90:22–31, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., and Gosling, S. D., Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6(1):3–5, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Germine, L., Nakayama, K., Duchaine, B. C., Chabris, C. F., Chatterjee, G., and Wilmer, J. B., Is the web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychonomic Bull Rev 19(5):847–857, 2012. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0296-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rice, S., Winter, S. R., Doherty, S., and Milner, M., Advantages and disadvantages of using internet-based survey methods in aviation-related research. J Aviat Tech Eng 7(1), 2017. https://doi.org/10.7771/2159-6670.1160.

  46. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., and Buchnher, A., G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39(2):175–191, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mehta, R., Rice, S., Winter, S. R., and Buza, P., Cabin Depressurization as a Hijacking Mitigation Tactic: A Consumer Perceptions Study. Collegiate Aviat Review Int 35(1):13–24, 2017. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.18.100472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Powell, M., and Ansic, D., Gender differences in risk behavior in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. J Econ Psychol 18(6):605–628, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00026-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mehta, R., Rice, S., Winter, S. R., and Oyman, K., Consumers’ perceptions about autopilots and remote-controlled commercial aircraft. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Litt, M. D., A model of pain and anxiety associated with acute stressors: Distress in dental procedures. Behav Res Ther 34(5–6):459–476, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(96)00015-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Anania, E. C., Rice, S., Walters, N., Pierce, M., Winter, S. R., and Milner, M. N., The effects of positive and negative information on consumers’ willingness to ride in a driverless vehicle. Transport Pol 72:218–224, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Anania, E. C., Rice, S., Winter, S. R., Milner, M. N., Walters, N. W., and Pierce, M., Why people are not willing to let their children ride on driverless school buses: A gender and nationality comparison. Soc Sci 7(3):34, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7030034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sun, X., McKenzie, F. D., Bawab, S., Li, J., Yoon, Y., and Huang, J. K., Automated dental implantation using image-guided robotics: Registration results. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6(5):627–634, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-010-0543-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ajzen, I., Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 20:1–63, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60411-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Fazio, R. H., Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The mode model as an integrative framework. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 23:75–109, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60318-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Noort, R. V., The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 28(1):3–12, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 600 S. Clyde Morris Blvd, Daytona Beach, FL, 32114, USA

    Mattie N. Milner, Emily C. Anania, Karla Candelaria-Oquendo, Stephen Rice, Scott R. Winter & Nadine K. Ragbir

Authors
  1. Mattie N. Milner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily C. Anania
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karla Candelaria-Oquendo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott R. Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nadine K. Ragbir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mattie N. Milner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – IRB Approval Exempt Determination. Approval # 18–044) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Patient Facing Systems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milner, M.N., Anania, E.C., Candelaria-Oquendo, K. et al. Patient Perceptions of New Robotic Technologies in Clinical Restorative Dentistry. J Med Syst 44, 33 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-019-1488-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-019-1488-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation