Patient-reported Outcomes of Implant Detector Device Use in Second-stage Dental Implant Surgery

Localization of submerged cover screws during second-stage dental implant surgery may require blind probing or extensive flap reflection, potentially increasing tissue trauma and postoperative discomfort. Implant detector devices (IDDs) have recently emerged as chairside adjuncts for implant localization; however, patient-reported outcomes associated with their clinical use remain underexplored. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes associated with different IDDs during second-stage dental implant surgery.

A prospective observational study was conducted across multiple clinical settings. Adult patients undergoing second-stage exposure of submerged dental implants were consecutively recruited. Implant localization was performed using one of three detector systems (EasyinSmile, Implant Locator iD1, or Spotter) prior to soft-tissue incision. Immediately after surgery, participants completed a structured questionnaire assessing satisfaction, perceived complications, comfort with device use, perceived pain reduction, and willingness to recommend the technology. Associations between detector type and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed using cross-tabulation and Fisher's exact test (α = 0.05).

Fifty-four patients were included. Overall satisfaction was high (87.0%, n = 47): 35 (64.8%) were very much satisfied, 12 (22.2%) somewhat satisfied, 7 (13.0%) undecided, and none selected either "not really satisfied" or "not at all satisfied." Most participants reported comfort with device use (77.8%, n = 42), and 49 (90.7%) perceived less pain during the detector-assisted procedure. No definite complications were reported, although 15 (27.8%) were unsure. Thirty-three participants (61.1%) indicated willingness to recommend the technology. No statistically significant differences were observed among the three detector systems for any patient-reported outcome (p > 0.05).

Implant detector devices were associated with high patient-reported satisfaction and a favorable procedural experience during second-stage implant surgery. Outcomes appeared comparable across detector systems; however, because this observational study did not include a conventional control group, superiority over standard localization methods cannot be inferred. Further randomized controlled studies with objective outcomes are needed to confirm these findings.

Implant detector devices may support a more patient-centered second-stage implant procedure by enabling minimally invasive implant uncovering, improving patient comfort and acceptance, and potentially reducing procedural anxiety. How to cite this article: Hamdi BA, AlZarea B, AlMoaleem MM, et al. Patient-reported Outcomes of Implant Detector Device Use in Second-stage Dental Implant Surgery. J Contemp Dent Pract 2026;27(2):156-162.