Table 4 Comparison between instruments and SEM analysis
SEM analysis | Instruments | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Control n = 30 (%) | Gracey n = 30 (%) | After-five n = 30 (%) | Mini-five n = 30 (%) | |
Roughness | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Grade 0 | 5 (16.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Grade 1 | 22 (73.3) | 1 (3.3) | 04 (13.3) | 0 (0) |
Grade 2 | 3 (10.0) | 17 (56.7) | 05 (16.7) | 07 (23.3) |
Grade 3 | 0 (0) | 12 (40.0) | 21 (70.0) | 23 (76.7) |
Adjusted Residual | 4.0 | 7.7 | − 2.4 | − 5.9 |
Adjusted P-value |  < 0.001* |  < 0.001* | 0.017 |  < 0.001* |
Smear layer | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Grade 1 | 0 (0) | 11 (36.7) | 22 (73.3) | 24 (80.0) |
Grade 2 | 6 (20.0) | 15 (50.0) | 06 (20.0) | 05 (16.7) |
Grade 3 | 10 (33.3) | 4 (13.3) | 02 (6.7) | 01 (3.3) |
Grade 4 | 14 (46.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Adjusted Residual | − 6.0 | − 1.0 | 3.5 | 6.9 |
Adjusted P-value |  < 0.001* | 0.340 |  < 0.001* |  < 0.001* |