Table 3. | Advantages and common complications of the IDIP method |
| Parameter | Specialists (n [%]) | χ2 | df | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Periodontists (n = 65) |
Oral surgeons (n = 121) |
||||
| The advantages of IDIP | |||||
| Less stress for the patient during the procedure | 53 (81.5%) | 85 (70.2%) | 2.815 | 1 | 0.093 |
| Reduced number of surgical procedures | 64 (98.5%) | 121 (100%) | 1.872 | 1 | 0.171 |
| Preservation of anatomical structures and good aesthetic result | 60 (92.3%) | 120 (99.2%) | 6.385 | 1 | 0.012a |
| Quick procedure | 16 (24.6%) | 41 (33.9%) | 1.709 | 1 | 0.191 |
| The most common complications during IDIP | |||||
| Insufficient aesthetics | 5 (7.7%) | 10 (8.3%) | 0.019 | 1 | 0.891 |
| Rejection of implant | 24 (36.9%) | 46 (38%) | 0.022 | 1 | 0.883 |
| Peri-implantitis | 1 (1.5%) | 3 (2.5%) | 0.178 | 1 | 0.673 |
| Soft tissue recession | 32 (49.2%) | 72 (59.5%) | 8.585 | 1 | 0.171 |
| Unpredictable bone resorption | 45 (69.2%) | 77 (63.6%) | 0.586 | 1 | 0.444 |
aStatistically significant at P < 0.05 (chi-square [χ2] test).
|
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)