Table 2.

Results of the Taguchi simulations. Teeth are arranged from most optimal (top) to least optimal (bottom). SubOpt1–3 are three suboptimal teeth that had optimality ratios extremely close to the optimal tooth's optimality ratio.

			food item		enamel
tooth	reaction force (kN)	contact area (mm2)	maximum tensile stress (MPa)	strain energy (J)	maximum tensile stress (MPa)	optimality ratio
optimum	2	30.61	150	495	91	1.640
SubOpt1	2	30.33	149	489	94	1.594
SubOpt2	2	31.38	136	490	87	1.570
SubOpt3	2	31.80	140	492	89	1.570
T5	2	32.01	140	554	96	1.469
T18	2	32.23	128	414	96	1.336
T8	2	33.27	99	399	75	1.320
T10	2	34.29	122	394	93	1.315
T11	2	34.48	119	382	92	1.296
T6	2	32.75	113	415	90	1.259
T12	2	32.03	110	399	89	1.227
T4	2	34.98	106	393	88	1.202
T9	2	34.84	111	399	92	1.202
T16	2	33.03	105	423	87	1.197
T14	2	33.98	108	381	91	1.188
T15	2	33.47	114	412	97	1.177
T13	2	33.02	107	390	93	1.158
T7	2	32.70	93	400	84	1.106
T17	2	34.64	90	364	86	1.047
T3	2	35.95	72	368	78	0.929
T2	2	34.13	69	362	77	0.892
T1	2	35.10	65	372	73	0.886
range	—	5.62	85	192	24	0.754