The volume increase represents an average growth of 17.52 nm 3 per second and the volume increase is highly significant compared to the first time point ( p < 0.001).
Excerpts
2-way ANOVA and Bonferroni posttests show highly significant increase of BMP2 concentration in the wells treated with Ti-BMP2 and BMP2 versus controls ( p < 0.001).
Statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA revealed highly significant differences among the experimental groups ( p < 0.001).
The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a highly significant overall difference in gingival thickness between groups (χ 2 = 55.66, df = 3, p < 0.001).
The difference was highly significant (n = 6, p < 0.001). 3.1.2.
The depth effect was also highly significant in all cases ( p < 0.001).
One-way ANOVA among groups treated only with Kloroben mouthrinse showed highly significant differences in color stability between materials (F = 221.300; p < 0.001).
The analysis showed that mix proportion exerted a highly significant effect on all three mechanical properties ( p < 0.001).
Six of the seven main effects were highly significant with p -values < 0.001.
For the mean drop angle, there was a highly significant difference between brands (F(2,12) = 192.40, p < 0.001), with a large effect size (η 2 p = 0.97).
Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant relationship between a slight increase in OLR and granule growth ( p < α , p = 0.0010 for R1, p = 0.0023 for R2, and p = 0.0011 for R3) ( Figure 5 ).
It can be reported that the electrical resistance was influenced by cyclic straining, which was highly significant at α = 0.05 level-value for the slope and intercept ( p -value < 0.001) (statistically significant).
Consequently, maize showed a highly significant 15% increase in average shoot height (30.23 cm vs. 25.88 cm in control; t(645) = 6.63, p < 0.001) and intense green coloration.
The statistical analysis revealed a highly significant main effect for the species with F (2, 81) = 178.157 and p < 0.001, indicating that the dependent variable varied substantially across the different wood species.
Examining the analysis of variance results ( Table S14 in Supplementary Materials ), it is evident that the linear component of the model is highly significant ( p -value = 0.001), suggesting that the linear relationships between the predictors and the dependent variable are statistically meaningful.
However, within the range of 0–0.9 m, the mean deflection values of the sensor-equipped geogrid-reinforced section were 23.1–59.7% lower than those of the conventional section, and all differences were highly significant ( p < 0.001).
As shown in Figure 3 a, the results exhibited a highly significant difference in wet shear strength between the SPI/POSS-U/SB-1.5 adhesive and the pristine SPI adhesive (*** p < 0.001).
The F u,cont values increased with an increasing wall thickness for the test groups, and all the pairwise test data were highly significant ( p < 0.001).
The 2-way ANOVA interaction between the taper type and secondary crown group was highly significant (F = 9.857, p < 0.001).
From Table 10 , it is shown that the model is highly significant ( p < 0.001), and confirms that it can be used to simulate the response adequately.
The Sample factor had a highly significant effect on the dependent variable (F(6,126) = 352.97, p < 0.001), indicating that different samples influenced the results to a significant extent.
Most notably, the TTH demonstrated a highly significant divergence between groups ( p < 0.001), with the S group demonstrating the shortest median TTH of 94 s (IQR: 86–98) compared to 256 s (IQR: 245–295) in the C group and 120 s (IQR: 78–131) in the T group, as presented in Table 10 and Figure 6 . 4.
As the correlation between pull-out force and pull-out force per area was found to be highly significant and very strong (Pearson’s correlation coefficient R = 0.970, p < 0.001), pull-out force was used as the only biomechanical parameter for the remaining animals. 2.6.
The regression model was highly significant (Wald χ 2 = 57,878.45, p < 0.001), revealing that no effect of defect diagnosis was present, while there was a significant effect of the treatment in both groups, particularly evident over time ( Table 3 ).
The face temperature continued to increase after using both, with highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) between conditions of wearing one or not doing it.