Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison between instruments and SEM analysis

From: Analysing root roughness and smear layer relationship by comparing contemporary dental curettes with conventional dental curettes: a randomised controlled trial

SEM analysis Instruments
Control
n = 30 (%)
Gracey
n = 30 (%)
After-five
n = 30 (%)
Mini-five
n = 30 (%)
Roughness     
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     
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*
  1. *Bonferroni correction (Significant at 0.05/16 = 0.0031)