Table 5.
Comparison of LNIG and CG based on Winter’s classification
| This study (LNIG) | Cheung et al, 2010 (CG) [9] | Almendros-Marqués et al, 2006 (CG) [15] | Uematsu et al, 2015 (CG) [16] | Oguma et al, 2013 (CG) [18] | Smith et al, 2013 (CG) [11] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distoangular (%) | 30.8 | 10.7 | 15.8 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 31.0 |
| Horizontal (%) | 30.8 | 26.0 | 12.4 | 50.9 | 66.7 | 13.0 |
| Mesioangular (%) | 19.2 | 47.9 | 20.5 | 27.5 | 18.7 | 32.0 |
| Vertical (%) | 11.5 | 15.4 | 47.9 | 19.7 | 13.9 | 21.0 |
| Inverted (%) | 3.8 | 0 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0 |
| Other (%) | 3.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 |
| P value (disto-) | 0.009 | 0.036 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.979 | |
| P value (horizo-) | 0.437 | 0.023 | 0.991 | 1 | 0.029 | |
| P value (mesio-) | 0.997 | 0.755 | 0.929 | 0.682 | 0.973 | |
| P value (vert-) | 0.738 | 1 | 0.879 | 0.668 | 0.906 | |
| P value (invert-) | 0.575 | 0.155 | 0.002 |
Abbreviations: LNIG lingual nerve injury group, CG control group
P value (chi-squared test): The ratio of Winter's classification in this study was statistically compared to the ratio found in other past studies. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant