Development of Teledentistry: From Pilot Projects to Successful Implementation

  • Isabelle Bourdon
  • Roxana Ologeanu-Taddei
  • Chris Kimble


As of telemedecine initiatives, teledentistry innovations have great potentials to enhance accessibility to dental care, reduce cost of care and enhance quality of dental care. Despite such potentials, many teledentistry innovations remain in the pilot phase or are not successfully implemented. To explain this paradoxe, we discuss the adoption, and the implementation of teledentistry in regular healthcare practices and the evaluation of the success of teledentitry projetc. We propose to identify the main critical factors for teledentistery initiatives.


Teledentistry Healthcare Innovation 


  1. 1.
    Bradley M, Black P, Noble S, Thompson R, Lamey PJ. Application of teledentistry in oral medicine in a community dental service, N. Ireland. Br Dent J. 2010;209:399–404. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Golder DT, Brennan KA. Practicing dentistry in the age of telemedicine. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;1939(131):734–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jampani ND, Nutalapati R, Dontula BSK, Boyapati R. Applications of teledentistry: a literature review and update. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2011;1:37–44. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scuffham PA, Steed M. An economic evaluation of the Highlands and Islands teledentistry project. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8:165–77. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhambal A, Saxena S, Balsaraf SV. Teledentistry: potentials unexplored! J Int Oral Health. 2010;2:1–6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sanchez Dils E, Lefebvre C, Abeyta K. Teledentistry in the United States: a new horizon of dental care. Int J Dent Hyg. 2004;2:161–4. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu PJ-H, Chau PYK, Sheng ORL. Adoption of telemedicine technology by healthcare organizations: an exploratory study. J Organ Comput Electron Commer. 2002;12:197–221. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mariño R, Ghanim A. Teledentistry: a systematic review of the literature. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19:179–83. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson DE, McClean SI. Trends in telemedicine assessment indicate neglect of key criteria for predicting success. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26:508–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu PH, Chau PY, Chan YK, Kwok JCK. Investigating technology implementation in a neurosurgical teleconsultation program: a case study in Hong Kong. In: proceedings of the 34th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Washington, DC: IEEE; 2001. p. 9pp.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    EHTEL. Sustainable telemedicine: paradigms for future-proof healthcare—eHealth Portal for Europe [WWW Document]. 2008. URL Accessed 28 Apr 16.
  12. 12.
    Ekeland AG, Grøttland A. Assessment of MAST in European patient-centered telemedicine pilots. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:304–11. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kidholm K, Ekeland AG, Jensen LK, Rasmussen J, Pedersen CD, Bowes A, Flottorp SA, Bech M. A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: MAST. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:44–51. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(11):736–71. inf.2010.08.006 20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Masella C, Zanaboni P. Assessment models for telemedicine services in National Health Systems. Int J Healthc Technol Manag. 2008;9:446–72. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hollingworth W, Devine EB, Hansen RN, Lawless NM, Comstock BA, Wilson-Norton JL, Tharp KL, Sullivan SL. The impact of e-prescribing on prescriber and staff time in ambulatory care clinics: a time–motion study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(6):722–30. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson RR. IT project management: infamous failures, classic mistakes, and best practices. MIS Q Exec. 2007;6(2):67–78.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paul DL, Pearlson KE, McDaniel RR. Assessing technological barriers to telemedicine: technology-management implications. IEEE Trans Eng Manag. 1999;46:279–88. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tanriverdi H, Iacono CS. Diffusion of telemedicine: a knowledge barrier perspective. Telemed J. 1999;5:223–44. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Broens THF, in’t Veld RMHAH, Vollenbroek-Hutten MMR, Hermens HJ, van Halteren AT, Nieuwenhuis LJM. Determinants of successful telemedicine implementations: a literature study. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13:303–9. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fitch CJ, Briggs JS, Beresford RA. System issues for successful tele-medicine implementation. Health Informatics J. 2000;6:166–73. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boonstra A, Versluis A, Vos JF. Implementing electronic health records in hospitals: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):370. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci. 1989;35:982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27:425–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chau PYK, Hu PJ-H. Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Inf Manag. 2002;39:297–311. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petcu R, Ologeanu-Taddei R, Bourdon I, Kimble C, Giraudeau N. Acceptance and organizational aspects of oral tele-consultation: a French STUDY. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE; 2016. p. 3124–3132.
  27. 27.
    Whitten PS, Richardson JD. A scientific approach to the assessment of telemedicine acceptance. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8:246–8. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patel RN, Antonarakis GS. Factors influencing the adoption and implementation of teledentistry in the UK, with a focus on orthodontics. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41:424–31. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zwaanswijk M, Verheij RA, Wiesman FJ, Friele RD. Benefits and problems of electronic information exchange as perceived by health care professionals: an interview study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ganguly P, Ray P. Software interoperability of telemedicine systems: a CSCW perspective. In: seventh international conference on parallel and distributed systems, 2000. Proceedings. Los Alamitos: IEEE; 2000. p. 349–356. doi:
  31. 31.
    Romanow D, Cho S, Straub D. Riding the wave: past trends and future directions for health IT research. MIS Q. 2012;36:iii–A18.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Or CK, Karsh BT. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(4):550–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barki H, Rivard S, Talbot J. Toward an assessment of software development risk. J Manag Inf Syst. 1993;10(2):203–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nicolini D. The work to make telemedicine work: a social and articulative view. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:2754–67. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wade VA, Eliott JA, Hiller JE. Clinician acceptance is the key factor for sustainable telehealth services. Qual Health Res. 2014;24:682–94. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giraudeau N, Valcarcel J, Tassery H, Levallois B, Cuisinier F, Tramini P, Vialla F. Projet e-DENT : téléconsultation bucco-dentaire en EHPAD. Eur Res Telemed. 2015;3:51. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen S, Cheng A, Mehta K. A review of telemedicine business models. Telemed e-Health. 2013;19(4):287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ologeanu-Taddei R, Bourdon I, Kimble C, Giraudeau N. The acceptability of teleconsultations in teledentistry: a case study. In: Cruz-Cunha M, Miranda I, editors. Encyclopedia of e-health and telemedicine. Hershey: IGI Global; 2016. p. 1–12. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bhattacherjee A, Hikmet N. Physicians’ resistance toward healthcare information technology: a theoretical model and empirical test. Eur J Inf Syst. 2007;16:725–37. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lapointe L, Rivard S. Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. Can Med Assoc J. 2006;174:1573–8. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lapointe L, Rivard S. A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Q. 2005;29:461–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mintzberg H. The structuring of organization: a synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1990.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2001;64(2):143–56.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bala H, Venkatesh V. Changes in employees’ job characteristics during an enterprise system implementation: a latent growth modeling perspective. MIS Q. 2013;37:1113–A7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Davidson EJ, Chismar WG. The interaction of institutionally triggered and technology-triggered social structure change: an investigation of computerized physician order entry. MIS Q. 2007;31:739–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wade V, Eliott J. The role of the champion in telehealth service development: a qualitative analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18:490–2. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wade VA, Hamlyn JS. The relationship between telehealth and information technology ranges from that of uneasy bedfellows to creative partnerships. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19:401–4. Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vuononvirta T, Timonen M, Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi S, Timonen O, Ylitalo K, Kanste O, Taanila A. The attitudes of multiprofessional teams to telehealth adoption in northern Finland health centres. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(6):290–6. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cresswell K, Sheikh A. Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2013;82(5):e73–e86.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Anderson CL, Agarwal R. The digitization of healthcare: boundary risks, emotion, and consumer willingness to disclose personal health information. Inf Syst Res. 2011;22:469–90. Scholar
  51. 51.
    Angst CM, Agarwal R. Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy concerns: the elaboration likelihood model and individual persuasion. MIS Q. 2009;33:339–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Bourdon
    • 1
  • Roxana Ologeanu-Taddei
    • 1
  • Chris Kimble
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Montpellier Research ManagementUniv. de MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.KEDGE Business SchoolMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations