Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Bone thickness parameters measured from sagittal sections

From: Three-dimensional evaluation of root dimensions and alveolar ridge width of maxillary lateral incisors in patients with unilateral agenesis

  Group Mean SD 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile p
Sagittal method
 Labial bone thickness (mm)
  2 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.317
Control 0.10 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
  4 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 0.52 0.57 0.00 0.40 1.00 0.015
Control 1.04 0.48 0.65 1.05 1.15
  6 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 1.24 0.55 1.00 1.20 1.50 0.983
Control 1.27 0.68 0.75 1.35 1.40
  10 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 1.61 0.65 1.20 1.30 1.90 0.328
Control 1.81 0.92 1.25 1.80 2.10  
 Palatal bone thickness (mm)
  2 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 0.13 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.229
Control 0.27 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00  
  4 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 1.03 0.94 0.00 0.90 1.50 0.771
Control 1.09 0.73 0.50 1.15 1.45  
  6 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 1.83 1.23 1.00 1.20 2.20 0.740
Control 1.55 1.03 0.80 1.45 2.15  
  10 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 3.15 1.99 1.60 2.80 4.80 0.575
Control 2.61 1.82 1.60 1.85 3.75  
 Total labiopalatal alveolar ridge width (mm), includes tooth width
  2 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 5.43 0.99 4.70 5.30 5.80 0.002*
Control 6.43 0.65 6.00 6.15 6.95  
  4 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 6.43 1.53 5.50 5.90 7.80 0.026
Control 7.47 0.71 6.80 7.55 7.90  
  6 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 7.33 1.25 6.40 7.40 8.60 0.520
Control 7.68 1.03 7.00 7.65 8.25  
  10 mm apical to CEJ MLIA 7.90 1.93 6.30 8.50 9.50 0.787
Control 8.02 1.26 7.35 7.95 8.20  
  1. Since four distance points from CEJ were used to examine outcomes, in order to minimize type 1 errors arising from multiple outcome assessments (at four different levels: 2 mm apical to CEJ, 4 mm apical to CEJ, 6 mm apical to CEJ, and 10 mm apical to CEJ), adjustments (based on Bonferroni formula) were made to p values to be deemed statistically significant. A p value of <0.012 was deemed to be statistically significant
  2. *p value is statistically significant at p < 0.012