Effectiveness of Nanohydroxyapatite on Demineralization of Enamel and Cementum Surrounding Margin of Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia Polycrystalline Ceramic Restoration
Table 2
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and contrast of difference of Vickers microhardness upon different anti-demineralizing materials at a different stage of application for enamel (2.1) and cementum (2.2) before material application (BM), after material application (AM), and after inducing demineralization (AD).
2.1 ANOVA of Vickers microhardness for enamel
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Intercept
3119783.313
1
3119783.313
18306.787
0.001
Material
1163.047
2
581.524
3.412
0.048
Error
4601.252
27
170.417
Contrasts of Vickers microhardness for enamel
Source
Stage
SS
df
MS
F
Stage
BM vs. AM
3931.014
1
3931.014
40.123
0.001
AM vs. AD
1541686.954
1
1541686.954
15185.474
0.001
Stage material
BM vs. AM
2094.981
2
1047.490
10.692
0.001
AM vs. AD
2222.922
2
1111.461
10.948
0.001
Error
BM vs. AM
2645.296
27
97.974
AM vs. AD
2741.143
27
101.524
2.2 ANOVA of Vickers microhardness for cementum
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Intercept
67792.357
1
67792.357
4624.300
0.001
Material
230.227
2
115.113
7.852
0.002
Error
395.821
27
14.660
Contrasts of Vickers microhardness for cementum
Source
Stage
SS
df
MS
F
Stage
BM vs. AM
348.298
1
348.298
9.835
0.004
AM vs. AD
60179.844
1
60179.844
3579.527
0.001
Stage material
BM vs. AM
739.973
2
369.986
10.448
0.001
AM vs. AD
175.189
2
87.595
5.210
0.012
Error
BM vs. AM
956.150
27
35.413
AM vs. AD
453.930
27
16.812
SS, sum of squares; MS, mean square; df, degree of freedom; F, F-ratio; , value.
