Table 1.
Enamel proportion for each tooth position.
Fig 1.
Boxplots of overall relative enamel content per tooth position.
*: p = 0.05, ***: p = 0.001, n.s. = not significant (all p-values from post-hoc Tukey test).
Fig 2.
Boxplots of pooled relative enamel content of all upper versus all lower molars. *: p = 0.05, ***: p = 0.001, n.s. = not significant (all p-values from post-hoc Tukey test).
Fig 3.
Histograms of relative enamel content for upper and lower molars of each species.
Table 2.
Test statistics for the phylogenetic MANOVA.
Species was used as the independent variable and relative enamel content per tooth position as the dependent variables. No significant influence of phylogeny was detected. df = degree of freedom, F = test value, p = significance level.
Table 3.
Results of one-way ANOVA with tooth position or jaw as factor and relative enamel content as the numeric variable.
Values in bold indicate a significant interaction (p ≤ 0.05). Statistics abbreviations: df = degree of freedom, SumSq = sum of squares, MeanSq = mean of squares, F = test value, p = significance level.
Table 4.
Results of Post-hoc Tukey test for multiple comparisons of means with 95% family-wise confidence level.
Values in bold indicate a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) for relative enamel content between tooth positions. Statistics abbreviations: diff = difference between group means, lower = lower end point of the interval, upper = upper end point of the interval, p = significance level.