TABLE 4.

Two-way ANOVA for the variable A point. The two factors tested were Treatment (BAMP and RME/FM) and the ZMS stages (A, B and C)

Point A Antero-posterior
Source of variation	DF	SS	MS	F	P
ZMS Stage	2	12.918	6.459	5.978	.006
Treatment	1	30.525	30.525	28.251	<.001
ZMS Stage × Treatment	2	3.565	1.782	1.650	.209
Residual	31	33.495	1.080
Total	36	80.808	2.245
Comparisons for factor: ZMS Stage
Comparison	Diff. of means	t	P	Critical level	Significant?
Stage B vs Stage C	1.4	3.336	.002	0.017	Yes
Stage A vs Stage C	1.3	2.619	.014	0.025	Yes
Stage B vs Stage A	0.1	0.284	.778	0.050	No
Comparisons for factor: Treatment
Comparison	Diff. of means	t	P	Critical level	Significant?
BAMP vs RME/FM	1.9	5.315	.000	0.050	Yes
Supero-inferior
Source of variation	DF	SS	MS	F	P
ZMS Stage	2	6.207	3.103	2.140	.135
Treatment	1	11.120	11.120	7.666	.009
ZMS Stage × Treatment	2	7.198	3.599	2.481	.100
Residual	31	44.965	1.450
Total	36	72.559	2.016
Comparisons for factor: Treatment
Comparison	Diff of means	t	P	Critical level	Significant?
RME/FM vs BAMP	1.2	2.769	.009	0.050	Yes
3D
Source of variation	DF	SS	MS	F	P
ZMS Stage	2	6.052	3.026	3.191	.055
Treatment	1	12.607	12.607	13.293	<.001
ZMS Stage × Treatment	2	1.182	0.591	0.623	.543
Residual	31	29.401	0.948
Total	36	49.497	1.375
Comparisons for factor: Treatment
Comparison	Diff. of means	t	P	Critical level	Significant?
BAMP vs RME/FM	1.2	3.646	.001	0.050	Yes

Differences of means were calculated on the least-square means (mm).

DF, Degrees of Freedom; SS, sum of squares; MS, mean squares.