Research Article
Evaluation of Time Consumption for Debonding Brackets Using Different Techniques: A Hospital-Based Study
Table 2
Tukey’s multiple comparison test for the time taken between the four different debonding methods.
| | Method (I) | Method (J) | Mean difference (I-J) | value | 95% confidence interval | | Lower bound | Upper bound |
| | US | DP | 0.03450 | 0.990 | −0.2588 | 0.3278 | | LC | 0.47250 | 0.001 | 0.1792 | 0.7658 | | TM | −0.12750 | 0.665 | −0.4208 | 0.1658 |
| | DP | US | −0.03450 | 0.990 | −0.3278 | 0.2588 | | LC | 0.43800 | 0.001 | 0.1447 | 0.7313 | | TM | −0.16200 | 0.472 | −0.4553 | 0.1313 |
| | LC | US | −0.47250 | 0.001 | −0.7658 | −0.1792 | | DP | −0.43800 | 0.001 | −0.7313 | −0.1447 | | TM | −0.60000 | 0.001 | −0.8933 | −0.3067 |
| | TM | US | 0.12750 | 0.665 | −0.1658 | 0.4208 | | DP | 0.16200 | 0.472 | −0.1313 | 0.4553 | | LC | 0.60000 | 0.001 | 0.3067 | 0.8933 |
|
|
US: ultrasonic scaler; DP: debonding plier; LC: ligature cutter; TN: thermal method. ∗The mean difference is significant as the p value < 0.05.
|