Table 2 Comparison of virtual properties of obturator bulbs designed via Sets A, B and C.

From: Development and virtual validation of a novel digital workflow to rehabilitate palatal defects by using smartphone-integrated stereophotogrammetry (SPINS)

Mesh surface area (MSA)

 

Mean (mm2)

SD

F-stat (df)

P valuea

Set A

1516.93

405.25

0.34 (2)

0.72

Set B

1426.20

410.43

Set C

1417.82

392.42

Virtual volume (VV)

 

Mean (mm3)

SD

F-stat (df)

P valuea

Set A

2744.47

1317.68

1.18 (2)

0.32

Set B

3331.73

1458.93

Set C

3158.38

1444.37

Hausdorff’s distance

 

Mean (mm)

SD

t-stat (df)

P valueb

Set B

0.55

0.40

− 0.81 (34)

0.42

Set C

0.65

0.38

Spatial overlap by dice similarity coefficient

 

Mean

SD

t-stat (df)

P valueb

Set B

0.82

0.09

0.60 (34)

0.55

Set C

0.80

0.09

  1. aOne-way ANOVA, 3 equal groups (total n=54). P value set at 0.05. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for MSA and VV is not significant (P > 0.05) for all groups. Data is normally distributed.
  2. bIndependent t-test, P value set at 0.05. All parameters for normal distribution met. Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests not significant (P > 0.05). Levene test for HD and DSC were 0.593 and 0.994, respectively. HD and DSC were obtained by taking Set A as comparison reference.
Back to article page