Comparison between anterior segmental osteotomy versus conventional orthodontic treatment in root resorption: a radiographic study using cone-beam computed tomography

Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Table 3 The correlation between variables in each group

Significance/correlation coefficient	Δ Root resorption (mm)	Δ Root resorption (%)	Δ Angle (°)	Δ AP position (mm)	Δ Duration (months)
Group A (Pearson’s correlation)
ΔRoot resorption (mm)	–	.000**	.918	.905	.630
ΔRoot resorption (mm)	1	.980^b	− .030	− .035	− .141
ΔRoot resorption (%)	.000**	–	.987	.899	.584
ΔRoot resorption (%)	.980^b	1	− .005	− .038	− .160
ΔAngle (°)	.918	.987	–	.002**	.024*
ΔAngle (°)	− .030	− .005	1	.756^b	− .596^a
ΔAP position (mm)	.905	.899	.002**	–	.016*
ΔAP position (mm)	− .035	− .038	.756^b	1	− .627^b
ΔDuration (months)	.630	.584	.024*	.016*	–
ΔDuration (months)	− .141	− .160	− .596^a	− .627^b	1
Group B (Spearman’s correlation)
ΔRoot resorption (mm)	–	.000**	.313	.498	.024*
ΔRoot resorption (mm)	1	.963^b	.280	.190	.577^a
ΔRoot resorption (%)	.000	–	.248	.697	.063
ΔRoot resorption (%)	.963^b	1	.318	.110	.491
ΔAngle (°)	.313	.248	–	.009**	.680
ΔAngle (°)	.280	.318	1	.646^b	.116
ΔAP position (mm)	.498	.697	.009**	–	.414
ΔAP position (mm)	.190	.110	.646^b	1	.228
ΔDuration (months)	.024*	.063	.680	.414	–
ΔDuration (months)	.577	.491	.116	.228	1