Skip to main content

Table 7 Comparisons of pre-post change in IZCG vs. EXG

From: Cephalometric and digital model analysis of dentoskeletal effects of infrazygomatic miniscrew vs. Essix- anchored Carriere Motion appliance for distalization of maxillary buccal segment: a randomized clinical trial

Characteristic

IZCG

EXG

95% CI

 

p-value

Cohen’s d

Lower bound

Upper bound

SNA (°)

0 ± 0.3

-0.5 ± 0.7

0.1

0.9

.019

0.879

SNB (°)

0.2 ± 0.8

0.9 ± 0.5

-1.1

-0.2

.008

1.004

ANB (°)

-0.1 ± 0.7

-1.3 ± 1.1

0.5

1.9

.001

1.240

LAFH (mm)

0 ± 1.4

1.1 ± 0.8

-1.9

-0.3

.012

.946

PFH (mm)

0.1 ± 1

1.4 ± 0.9

-2

-0.6

.001

1.334

U1-SN (°)

-3.8 ± 2

-1.4 ± 0.8

-3.6

-1.3

 < .001

1.618

U3 ANGLE (°)

-6.8 ± 4.9

-5.4 ± 3.7

-4.5

1.7

.378

0.317

U6 ANGLE (°)

-5.8 ± 4.2

-8.1 ± 2.7

-0.2

4.9

.073

0.657

L6 ANGLE (°)

0.4 ± 0.8

-5.2 ± 3.4

3.7

7.5

 < .001

2.236

IMPA (°)

-0.2 ± 0.7

3.5 ± 1.3

-4.5

-3

 < .001

3.512

IIA (°)

3.4 ± 2.6

-3.9 ± 2.8

5.4

9.3

 < .001

2.699

U3 VP (mm)

-0.5 ± 0.8

3 ± 2

-4.6

-2.4

 < .001

2.314

U6 VP (mm)

-1.7 ± 1.3

1.2 ± 0.9

-3.7

-2.1

. < .001

2.671

L6m VP (mm)

0 ± 0.5

-1.6 ± 0.8

1.1

2.1

 < .001

2.443

L6d VP (mm)

0 ± 0.5

1.3 ± 0.9

0.7

1.7

 < .001

1.682

L6 AP (mm)

-0.1 ± 0.2

1.6 ± 1.2

-2.3

-1

 < .001

1.846

Model measurements

 MV- U3

13.5 ± 5.9

3.8 ± 1

6.5

12.9

 < .001

2.286

 MV- U6

15.6 ± 7

7.7 ± 3.2

3.9

11.9

 < .001

1.448

 MH- U3

-3.1 ± 0.9

-2.3 ± 0.7

-1.3

-0.2

.010

0.967

 MH- U6

3.2 ± 1.2

2.2 ± 0.8

0.3

1.8

.006

1.045

 ICW

10.7 ± 3

2..3 ± 0.7

6.8

10

 < .001

3.868

 IMW

0.9 ± 0.8

-0.1 ± 0.9

.04

1.6

.001

1.251

 OJ

-1.6 ± 1

-1.4 ± 0.9

-0.9

0.5

.622

0.176

 OB

0 ± 0.8

-1.3 ± 0.9

0.7

1.9

 < .001

1.508

  1. Data is expressed as mean ± SD. The test of significance is Independent-Samples t-test. Effect size is presented as Cohen’s d (effect size is considered as small, medium, and large if Cohen’s d = 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively)