Dentists’ perceptions and usability testing of the Implant Disease Risk Assessment IDRA, a tool for preventing peri-implant disease: a qualitative study

Introduction: we aimed to explore dentists’ perceptions toward the implementation of a dental informatics risk assessment tool which estimates the risk for a patient to develop peri-implantitis. Materials and Methods: the Implant Disease Risk Assessment Tool (IDRA) was presented to a convenience sample of seven dentists working in a university clinic, whom were asked to use IDRA with the information of three clinical cases whilst thinking aloud and then fill the System Usability Scale (SUS). A semi-structured interview technique was used with audio record to allow free expression of participants’ perceptions related to the IDRA. The interviews information was categorized and analyzed by the authors. Results: to our knowledge, this is the first study conducted to develop a qualitative usability test of IDRA, evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, and users’ satisfaction. There were more variations in responses the greater the degree of complexity of the clinical case. Generally, the participants classified the tool as good, getting usability values of 77,2 (SD 19,8) and learnability 73,2 (SD 24,5). Conclusion: four additional factors should be considered to improve IDRA tool: 1) considering the relation between contour angle and peri‐implant tissue height; 2) automatic periodontal classification in the IDRA tool after completing the periodontogram in the clinical software; 3) presentation of a flow chart to assist therapeutic decisions alongside the final score defined by the IDRA tool; 4) integrating of precision tests such as Implantsafe® DR (dentognostics gmbh, Jena) and Oralyzer®(dentognostics gmbh, Jena). Clinical Significance: etiology and pathogenesis of peri-implant diseases is multifactorial. These tools must follow a natural integration to be easily applied in a clinical setting. It is important to study their usability from the clinicians’ point of view, evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, and users’ satisfaction.