Skip to main content
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Table 3 Post hoc analysis comparing the mean of Group 1–1, Group 1–2, and Group 1–3

From: Effects of rhBMP-2 with various carriers on maxillofacial bone regeneration through computed tomography evaluation

 

Mean rank difference

p value†

Group 1–1 with 1–2

 − 8.2

0.803

Group 1–1 with 1–3

 − 16.0

0.003**

Group 1–2 with 1–3

 − 7.8

0.997

  1. Group 1–1, which used allograft as a carrier showed a significantly higher bone regeneration rate compared to Group 1–3, which used ACS as a carrier
  2. Multiple comparisons using rank sums: Bonferroni
  3. Group 1–1, rhBMP-2 + allograft; Group 1–2, rhBMP-2 xenograft; Group 1–3, rhBMP-2 + ACS
  4. †p value: adjusted p value (p = 0.05)
  5. *p < 0.05
  6. **p < 0.01
Back to article page