3.Analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing means of more than two groups.
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics 2014;39(1):74-77
No abstract available.
Analysis of Variance*
4.ANOVA and multiple comparison(2).
Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine 2000;21(11):1397-1405
No Abstract Available.
Analysis of Variance*
5.ANOVA and multiple comparison(1).
Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine 2000;21(9):1122-1130
No abstract available.
Analysis of Variance*
6.What repeated measures analysis of variances really tells us.
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 2015;68(4):340-345
This article examined repeated measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA). Within-subjects repeated measurements are unavoidable during clinical and experimental investigation, and between- and within-subject variability should be treated separately. Only through proper use and meticulous interpretation can ethical and scientific integrity be guaranteed. The philosophical background of, and knowledge pertaining to, RMANOVA are described in the first half of this text. The sphericity assumption and associated issues are discussed in the latter half. The final section provides a summary measure analysis, which was neglected by P value-dependent interpreters.
Analysis of Variance
7.Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Sample size calculation 3. Comparison of several means using one-way ANOVA.
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics 2016;41(3):231-234
No abstract available.
Analysis of Variance*
;
Sample Size*
9.Effect of activation and preactivation on the mechanical behavior and neutral position of stainless steel and beta-titanium T-loops.
Saul Matos DE CASTRO ; Rui MOREIRA ; Ana Cristina BRAGA ; Afonso Pinhao FERREIRA ; Maria Cristina POLLMANN
The Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2015;45(4):198-208
OBJECTIVE: To quantify, for each activation, the effect of preactivations of differing distribution and intensity on the neutral position of T-loops (7-mm height), specifically the horizontal force, moment to force (M/F) ratio, and load to deflection ratio. METHODS: A total 100 loops measuring 0.017 x 0.025 inches in cross-section were divided into two groups (n = 50 each) according to composition, either stainless steel or beta-titanium. The two groups were further divided into five subgroups, 10 loops each, corresponding to the five preactivations tested: preactivations with occlusal distribution (0degrees, 20degrees, and 40degrees), gingival distribution (20degrees), and occlusal-gingival distribution (40degrees). The loops were subjected to a total activation of 6-mm with 0.5-mm iterations. Statistical analysis was performed using comprised ANOVA and Bonferoni multiple comparison tests, with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: The location and intensity of preactivation influenced the force intensity. For the M/F ratio, the highest value achieved without preactivation was lower than the height of the loop. Without preactivation, the M/F ratio increased with activation, while the opposite effect was observed with preactivation. The increase in the M/F ratio was greater when the preactivation distribution was partially or fully gingival. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the preactivation distribution, displacement of uprights is higher or lower than the activation, which is a factor to consider in clinical practice.
Analysis of Variance
;
Stainless Steel*
Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail