| Literature DB >> 28951740 |
Saurabh Chaturvedi1, Mohamed Khaled Addas1, Abdullah Saad Ali Al Humaidi2, Abdulrazaq Mohammed Al Qahtani2, Mubarak Daghash Al Qahtani2.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the prevalence of type of soft palate in targeted population.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28951740 PMCID: PMC5603334 DOI: 10.1155/2017/3268064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Division of samples in group.
| Group 1 | Group 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 samples | 50 samples | ||
| 20–40 years | 41–60 years | ||
| 25 male | 25 female | 25 male | 25 female |
Figure 1Intraoral scanner cart.
Figure 2Screenshot of the scanned maxillae showing the extended scanning of soft palate. (occlusal view, lateral view).
Figure 3
Figure 4Percentage distribution of type of soft palate among groups.
Distribution of soft palate types.
| Total ( | Chi-square value | df |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class I | 30 | 17.840 | 2 | 0.000 |
| Class II | 52 | |||
| Class III | 18 | |||
|
| ||||
| Total | 100 | |||
Significant at 5% level of significance.
Distribution of soft palate types by age group.
| Class I ( | Class II ( | Class III ( | Total | Chi-square value | df |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of 20–40 years | 12 | 30 | 8 | 50 | 2.65 | 2 | 0.265 |
| Age of 40–60 years | 18 | 22 | 10 | 50 | |||
|
| |||||||
| Total | 30 | 52 | 18 | 100 | |||
Significant at 5% level of significance.
Comparison between male and female in different classes of soft palate.
| Gender |
| Mean | Std. deviation |
| df |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class 1 | Male | 15 | 5.93 | 1.486 | −4.194 | 28 | 0.000 |
| Female | 15 | 8.20 | 1.474 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Class 2 | Male | 26 | 28.15 | 7.176 | −4.341 | 50 | 0.000 |
| Female | 26 | 36.00 | 5.783 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Class 3 | Male | 9 | 55.00 | 6.164 | −3.159 | 16 | 0.006 |
| Female | 9 | 63.67 | 5.454 | ||||
Significant at 5% level of significance.