Table 1 Hypothesis testing results of three different test cases.

Hypothesis testing case		No. of sample (n)	Mean (SD) μg F/cm²	Test method	P value	Hedge’s g	95% CI	Power
I	G1—DI Water	14	μ₁ = 2.369 (0.414)	Two-sample T test	0.00000107 (reject H₀)	2.27	1.277, 3.262	> 0.99
I	G2—NaF by EKF	15	µ₂ = 4.709 (1.375)	Two-sample T test	0.00000107 (reject H₀)	2.27	1.277, 3.262	> 0.99
II	G3—DI Water	16	μ₁ = 3.171 (1.407)	Two-sample T test	0.0000798 (reject H₀)	1.677	0.806, 2.548	> 0.99
II	G4—NaF by EKF	15	µ₂ = 5.743 (1.659)	Two-sample T test	0.0000798 (reject H₀)	1.677	0.806, 2.548	> 0.99

			Median (IQR) μg F/cm²
III	ΔF₁ = G3–G1	14	μ₁ = 0.140 (0.545)	Mann–Whitney test	0.007762 (reject H₀)	1.535	0.840, 2.231	> 0.84*
III	ΔF₂ = G4–G2	15	µ₂ = 1.010 (0.885)	Mann–Whitney test	0.007762 (reject H₀)	1.535	0.840, 2.231	> 0.84*

Statistical analysis of F⁻ ion quantification (μg F/cm²) from normal enamel (I) using acid biopsy for 30 s; (II) using acid biopsy for 20 min; Statistical analysis of delta-F⁻ (ΔF⁻) ion quantification (μg F/cm²) (III) from normal enamel using acid biopsy. Case (I): NaF infiltration by EKF does not affect the amount of F ion incorporated into normal enamel quantification as compared with DI infiltration by EKF; Case (II): The depth of the enamel biopsy does not affect the amount of F ion extracted from EKF-treated normal enamel; Case (III): No effect from the diffusion treatment of NaF and the electrical field of EKF on enamel.
*1-tailed 5% significance level.

Quick links

Search