On 2016 Apr 09, Sergio Uribe commented:

Strange results. The Fuji II LC had a mean microleakage of 7.99 and SD of 9.57. Hence some samples had a leakage of -1.58 um....

also, a group with mean(SD) of 1.28(0.98) was not statistically different from another with 7.99(9.57), but both were different from a third with 4.36(5.64). (See Table 2)

After reading the paper, is it not clear if they compared the repeated meaures against the baseline measurement or against each other. The description of the statistical procedure in the paper states: "Finally, the data were analyzed by repeated measures and Duncan (a=0.05) tests." Uninformative.

Maybe the authors can give a more detailed explanation on how they assess the differences among groups.

On 2016 Apr 09, Sergio Uribe commented:

Strange results. The Fuji II LC had a mean microleakage of 7.99 and SD of 9.57. Hence some samples had a leakage of -1.58 um....

also, a group with mean(SD) of 1.28(0.98) was not statistically different from another with 7.99(9.57), but both were different from a third with 4.36(5.64). (See Table 2)

After reading the paper, is it not clear if they compared the repeated meaures against the baseline measurement or against each other. The description of the statistical procedure in the paper states: "Finally, the data were analyzed by repeated measures and Duncan (a=0.05) tests." Uninformative.

Maybe the authors can give a more detailed explanation on how they assess the differences among groups.