Table 2 Results obtained in the study in the labial site
From: Burning mouth syndrome: is acupuncture a therapeutic possibility?
Capillaroscopic parameter and phase comparison | Control group (mean ± SD) | Significance p <0.05 | Case group (mean ± SD) | Significance p <0.05 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Tortuosity t0 – t1 | t0: 1.58 ± 0.40 t1: 1.91 ± 0.38 | NS | t0: 1.98 ± 0.017 t1: 5.04 ± 0.044 | S 0.0001 |
Tortuosity t0 – t2 | t0: 1.58 ± 0.40 t2: 1.81 ± 0.91 | NS | t0: 1.98 ± 0.017 t2: 3.95 ± 0.030 | S 0.0001 |
Diameter of afferent loop t0 – t1 | t0: 0.0160 ± 0.0003 t1: 0.0150 ± 0.0003 | NS | t0: 0.014 ± 0.005 t1: 0.015 ± 0.005 | NS |
Diameter of afferent loop t0 – t2 | t0: 0.0160 ± 0.0003 t2: 0.015 ± 0.005 | NS | t0: 0.014 ± 0.005 t2: 0.011 ± 0.004 | NS |
Diameter of efferent loop t0 – t1 | t0: 0.011 ± 0.003 t1: 0.009 ± 0.002 | NS | t0: 0.018 ± 0.003 t1: 0.021 ± 0.004 | NS |
Diameter of efferent loop t0 – t2 | t0: 0.011 ± 0.003 t2: 0.013 ± 0.020 | NS | t0: 0.018 ± 0.003 t2: 0.015 ± 0.001 | NS |
Diameter of capillary t0 – t1 | t0: 0.035 ± 0.010 t1: 0.034 ± 0.010 | NS | t0: 0.04 ± 0.007 t1: 0.04 ± 0.01 | NS |
Diameter of capillary t0 – t2 | t0: 0.035 ± 0.010 t2: 0.037 ± 0.009 | NS | t0: 0.04 ± 0.007 t2: 0.04 ± 0.004 | NS |
Length of capillary t0 – t1 | t0: 0.22 ± 0.004 t1: 0.22 ± 0.059 | NS | t0: 0.33 ± 0.14 t1: 0.26 ± 0.08 | NS |
Length of capillary t0 – t2 | t0: 0.220 ± 0.059 t2: 0.230 ± 0.051 | NS | t0: 0.33 ± 0.14 t2: 0.30 ± 0.24 | NS |
Density of capillaries t0 – t1 | t0: 29.10 ± 6.56 t1: 26.37 ± 5.54 | NS | t0: 31.6 ± 1.30 t1: 43.5 ± 1.73 | S 0.0001 |
Density of capillaries t0 – t2 | t0: 29.10 ± 6.56 t2: 27.75 ± 4.78 | NS | t0: 31.6 ± 1.30 t2: 38.4 ± 3.64 | NS |
t0: capillaroscopic study of microcirculation in absence of acupuncture | ||||
t1: capillaroscopic exam following the introduction of needles in the acupoints 1 minute from the first stimulation | ||||
t2: capillaroscopic exam following the introduction of needles in the acupoints 5 minutes from the second stimulation | ||||
