Table 5. | The need for additional soft and hard tissue augmentation |
| Parameter | Specialists (n [%]) | χ2 | df | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Periodontists (n = 65) |
Oral surgeons (n = 121) |
||||
| The need for soft tissue augmentation at the site of the planned implant in an aesthetic zone | |||||
| A vertical gingival defect | 54 (83.1%) | 95 (78.5%) | 0.553 | 1 | 0.457 |
| An interdental papilla and gingival contour defects | 54 (83.1%) | 79 (65.3%) | 6.566 | 1 | 0.01a |
| The vertical gingival thickness is > 2 mm, | 4 (6.2%) | 7 (5.8%) | 0.01 | 1 | 0.919 |
| The vertical gingival thickness is < 2 mm | 60 (92.3%) | 96 (79.3%) | 5.257 | 1 | 0.022a |
| The width of keratinized gingiva is > 2 mm | 2 (3.1%) | 7 (5.8%) | 0.674 | 1 | 0.412 |
| The width of keratinized gingiva is < 2 mm | 58 (89.2%) | 107 (88.4%) | 0.027 | 1 | 0.869 |
| The need for hard tissue augmentation at the site of the planned implant in a non-aesthetic zone | |||||
| The thickness of the buccal bone wall is < 1 mm | 52 (80%) | 97 (80.2%) | 0.001 | 1 | 0.979 |
| Hard tissue defects (intra-socket defects, dehiscence, fenestration), | 60 (92.3%) | 103 (85.1%) | 2.014 | 1 | 0.156 |
| Significant or complete loss of one socket bone wall | 58 (89.2%) | 114 (94.2%) | 1.059 | 1 | 0.219 |
| The gap between the implant and the socket wall is > 2 mm | 54 (83.1%) | 99 (81.8%) | 0.046 | 1 | 0.83 |
aStatistically significant at P < 0.05 (chi-square [χ2] test).
|
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)