Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. 2010 Mar-Apr;18(2):186–193. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572010000200014

Table 1. Discrimination among different conditions of the enamel bovine samples evaluated with different methods of plaque quantification.

	Cleaned	Not Cleaned
		Without plastic mesh	With plastic mesh
Silness & Loe ^*	0.17 ± 0.56ª	0.29 ± 0.81ª	2.04 ± 1.04^b
Turesky ^*	0.96 ± 0.20ª	1.88 ± 1.39^b	3.58 ± 1.61^c
Ekstrand ^*	1.33 ± 0.56ª	1.17 ± 0.38ª	1.79 ± 0.41^b
FC + Turesky ^*	1.58 ± 0.88ª	1.18 ± 0.70ª	3.13 ± 1.33^b
FC + disclosing + Turesky ^*	1.63 ± 0.88ª	2.21 ± 1.41ª	3.92 ± 1.18^b
FC ^**	0.66 ± 2.09ª	0.16 ± 0.11ª	0.41 ± 0.17^b
FC + disclosing ^**	0.34 ± 0.11ª	0.43 ± 0.18^b	0.57 ± 0.19^c
Photographic images ^**	0.35 ± 0.11ª	0.52 ± 0.24^b	0.61 ± 0.29^b

Different letters indicate statistically significant differences among the groups within the same row (p < 0.05).

^*

Mean of scores standard deviations of each index.

^**

Mean of percentage area of block surface covered by plaque ± standard deviations. FC = Fluorescence camera.