Table 2.

Summary of the results of the post hoc Dunn’s test

(A) LEA in conventional CT	Saline	PHIL 25%	Squid 18	(B) LEA in cone-beam CT	Saline	PHIL 25%	Squid 18
Onyx 18	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p = 0.019	Onyx 18	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p = 0.005
Squid 18	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	–	Squid 18	p < 0.001	p = 0.044	–
PHIL 25%	p = 0.502	–	–	PHIL 25%	p = 0.04	–	–
(C) LEA in conventional CT	Saline	PHIL 25%	Squid 18	(D) LEA in cone-beam CT	Saline	PHIL 25%	Squid 18
Onyx 18	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p > 0.999	Onyx 18	p < 0.001	p = 0.001	p > 0.999
Squid 18	p < 0.001	P = 0.004	–	Squid 18	p < 0.001	p = 0.011	–
PHIL 25%	p = 0.032	–	–	PHIL 25%	p = 0.005	–	–

P‑values of the quantitative analyses for conventional CT (A) and CBCT (B). Significant difference was observed between all study groups, except for PHIL 25% vs. saline in conventional CT

P‑values of the qualitative analyses for conventional CT (C) and CBCT (D). There was no statistically significant difference between the EVOH-based LEAs Onyx 18 and Squid 18 while all other groups demonstrated a significantly different degree of artifacts in both imaging modalities

Italic type indicates statistical significance

LEA liquid embolic agent