Skip to main content

Table 3 Inter-group comparisons

From: Evaluation of the relationship between malar projection and lower facial convexity in terms of perceived attractiveness in 3-dimensional reconstructed images

 Overall score (Median (Standard deviation))p valueBonferroni post hoc p value
Malar position groupProtruded Malar (PM)Retruded Malar (RM)Neutral Malar (NM) PM vs. RMPM vs. NMRM vs. NM
M9.0 (5.3)14.0 (6.6)9.0 (5.5)p < 0.001***p < 0.001***p = 0.545p < 0.001***
F9.0 (4.6)16.0 (7.2)10.0 (5.9)p < 0.001***p < 0.001***p = 0.542p < 0.001***
M vs. Fp = 0.735p = 0.003*p = 0.045*    
Jaw position groupProtruded Jaws (PJ)Retruded Jaws (RJ)Neutral Jaws (NJ) PJ vs. RJPJ vs. NJRJ vs. NJ
M15.0 (6.7)9.0 (5.2)9.0 (4.5)p < 0.001***p < 0.001***p < 0.001***p = 1.000
F18.0 (7.0)7.0 (5.1)10.0 (4.4)p < 0.001***p < 0.001***p < 0.001***p < 0.001***
M vs. Fp = 0.159p = 0.987p = 0.801    
Relative position groupRelatively deficient malar (RD)Balanced profiles (BP)Relatively prominent malar (RP) RD vs. BPBP vs. RPRP vs. RD
M15.0 (6.2)9.0 (5.0)8.0 (4.9)p < 0.001***p < 0.001***p = 0.033*p < 0.001***
F18.0 (5.4)9.0 (3.8)7.0 (4.8)p < 0.001***p < 0.001***p = 0.063p < 0.001***
M vs. Fp < 0.001***p = 0.096p = 0.162    
  1. M Male subject, F Female subject; all comparisons were Bonferroni-adjusted; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001