Skip to main content
. 2016 Jun 28;46(3):166–175. doi: 10.5051/jpis.2016.46.3.166

Table 2. Proportions (%) of preferences regarding periodontal treatment before the debate (frequency/number of responses).

Characteristics of participants Case I Case II
#46 #47
Total number of participants who responded 34.57 37.04 57.14
Conference Periodontal conference 58.82 (20/34)a) 35.29 (12/34) 83.87 (26/31)a)
Implant conference 17.02 (8/47)a) 38.30 (18/47) 42.31 (22/52)a)
P-value <0.001a) 0.78 <0.001a)
Gender Male 30.43 (14/46) 34.78 (16/46) 54.17 (26/48)
Female 47.62 (10/21) 47.62 (10/21) 63.16 (12/19)
P-value 0.34 0.46 0.73
Age Under 45 yr 34.04 (16/47) 36.17 (17/47) 51.06 (24/47)
Over 45 yr 55.56 (5/9) 66.67 (6/9) 90.00 (9/10)
P-value 0.33 0.12 0.08
Specialization Periodontology 40.63 (13/32)a) 37.50 (12/32) 62.07 (18/29)
Non-periodontology 18.42 (7/38)a) 28.95 (11/38) 55.00 (22/40)
P-value 0.003a) 0.11 0.84
Experiences related to clinical practice Clinical experience Under 10 yr 34.78 (16/46) 39.13 (18/46) 54.54 (24/22)
Over 10 yr 31.03 (9/29) 37.93 (11/29) 63.33 (19/30)
P-value 0.67 0.56 0.75
Periodontal therapy Simple 30.43 (7/23) 30.43 (7/23) 69.57 (16/23)
Complicated 32.00 (16/50) 38.00 (19/50) 52.94 (27/51)
P-value 0.21 0.60 0.40
Dental implant therapy Fewer than 50 cases 38.89 (14/36) 36.11 (13/36) 51.35 (19/37)a)
More than 50 cases 30.30 (10/33) 39.39 (13/33) 75.00 (24/32)a)
P-value 0.75 0.92 0.03a)

a)Statistically significant difference.