Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of the QST parameters in patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS) (Results of the ANOVA – LSD posthoc analysis)

From: Profiling intraoral neuropathic disturbances following lingual nerve injury and in burning mouth syndrome

 

1) Group difference

  

2) Area-difference

  

3) Interaction group/area

  
 

BMS versus control group

BMS versus foot

   
 

ANOVA Factor

LSD posthoc

ANOVA Factor

LSD posthoc

ANOVA Factor

LSD posthoc

QST Parameter

F-value

P-value

 

F-value

P-value

 

F-value

P-value

 

CDT

18

<0.001 ***

<0.01 **

0.4

n.s.

n.s.

0.4

n.s.

<0.01 **

WDT

4.3

n.s.

<0.01 **

7.6

<0.05 *

<0.01 **

7.6

<0.05 *

<0.01 **

TSL

2.2

n.s.

n.s.

5.8

<0.05 *

<0.05 **

5.8

<0.05 *

n.s.

CPT

11.1

<0.01 **

<0.01 **

2.6

n.s.

n.s.

2.6

n.s.

<0.05 *

HPT

2.5

n.s.

n.s

0

n.s.

n.s.

0

n.s.

n.s.

PPT

7.8

<0.05 *

n.s.

0.2

n.s.

n.s.

0.2

n.s.

n.s.

MPT

11.3

<0.01 **

<0.001 ***

6.9

<0.05 *

<0.01 **

6.9

<0.05 *

<0.001 ***

MPS

1.8

n.s.

n.s.

2.8

n.s

n.s.

2.8

n.s.

<0.05 *

WUR

0.5

n.s.

n.s.

0

n.s.

n.s.

0

n.s.

n.s.

MDT

0.5

n.s

n.s.

4.6

<0.05 *

<0.05 *

4.6

<0.05 *

n.s.

VDT

0.8

n.s.

n.s.

2.5

n.s.

n.s.

2.5

n.s.

n.s.

  1. 1) BMS patients’ tongue compared to healthy controls’ tongue (group difference)
  2. 2) BMS patients’ tongue compared to foot in BMS patients (area difference)
  3. 3) BMS patients’ tongue compared to foot and healthy control group (interaction group/area)
  4. QST was performed as a split study on the tongue and the foot on patients (n = 5) and healthy controls (n = 8). An ANOVA as well as a LSD posthoc (groups/ area/ interaction) was calculated to indicate main effects in the comparison of the BMS and control group, the tongue and the foot, and for the interaction among each other (interaction group/ area) *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; n.s. = no significance, significance shown in Fig. 2
Back to article page

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us