. 2024 Aug 13;76(6):5195–5200. doi: 10.1007/s12070-024-04942-y

Table 6.

Relation between substitution errors and sex in group 1

Item	Female “n = 70”	Male “n = 80”	P-value
1-Devocing 2-Lateral Sigmatism 3-Pharyngeal Sigmatism 4-Rotacism 5-Back to front 6-Interdental sigmatism	28(40.0%) 8(11.4%) 4(5.7%) 28(40.0%) 6(8.6%) 26(37.1%)	30(37.5%) 10(12.5%) 0 24(30.0%) 10(12.5%) 54(67.5%)	P = 0.586n.s P = 0.214n.s P = 0.214n.s P = 0.253n.s P = 0.434n.s P < 0.008**

Item

Female
“n = 70”

Male
“n = 80”

P-value

1-Devocing

2-Lateral Sigmatism

3-Pharyngeal Sigmatism

4-Rotacism

5-Back to front

6-Interdental sigmatism

28(40.0%)

8(11.4%)

4(5.7%)

28(40.0%)

6(8.6%)

26(37.1%)

30(37.5%)

10(12.5%)

24(30.0%)

10(12.5%)

54(67.5%)

P = 0.586n.s

P = 0.214n.s

P = 0.253n.s

P = 0.434n.s

P < 0.008**

Data expressed as number and percentage Using Chi-test in numeric data. To comparison between subjects & control groups.^n.sp-value non significant.