. 2018 Sep;52(3):246–253. doi: 10.15644/asc52/3/8

Table 2. A-RPD versus CC-RPD instructions.

Variables		Type of prosthesis				P-value
		A-RPD		CC-RPD
		N	%	N	%
Were there instructions accompanying the master cast	No	15	21.7%	0	0%	0.113
Were there instructions accompanying the master cast	Yes	54	78.3%	11	100%	0.113
Have you been asked to design the prosthesis	Yes	14	20.3%	0	0%	0.103
Have you been asked to design the prosthesis	No	55	79.7%	11	100%	0.103
Type of instructions	Verbal	38	55.1%	6	54.5%	0.123
	Written	16	23.2%	5	45.5%
	No instruction	15	21.7%	0	0%
Will you need to contact the dentist for clarification of the design prior to making the prosthesis?	No	44	63.8%	5	45.5%	0.004
	Yes	10	14.5%	6	54.5%
	No instruction	15	21.7%	0	0.0%
Does the dentist approach you to discuss the design of the case?	No	52	75.4%	6	54.5%	0.269
	Yes	17	24.6%	5	45.5%	0.269
Was the age of the patient mentioned?	No	56	81.2%	5	45.5%	0.018
Was the age of the patient mentioned?	Yes	13	18.8%	6	54.5%	0.018
Was the gender of the patient mentioned?	No	43	62.3%	3	27.3%	0.084
Was the gender of the patient mentioned?	Yes	26	37.7%	8	72.7%	0.084
Was the return date mentioned?	No	24	34.8%	2	18.2%	0.482
Was the return date mentioned?	Yes	45	65.2%	9	81.8%	0.482
Was there a design diagram?	No	62	89.9%	6	54.5%	0.009
Was there a design diagram?	Yes	7	10.1%	5	45.5%	0.009

The level of significance (0.05) was adjusted for the 7 tests (0.05/7 = 0.007), which has led to the p-value of less than 0.007 being considered as significant.