Table 5.

Subject- and teeth-related white spot lesion (WSL) and sub-bracket lesion (SBL) formation in the specific tooth groups.

Effect		Score changes from 0 to
		(1;4)				(1;3;4)				(2;3;5;6;7)				(1;2;3;4;5;6;7)
		Pr > F				Pr > F				Pr > F				Pr > F
	Tooth group:	12–22	15–45	16–46	17–47	12–22	15–45	16–46	17–47	12–22	15–45	16–46	17–47	12–22	15–45	16–46	17–47
Type of appliance (group A; B)		0.86	0.35	0.42	0.18	0.46	0.23	0.29	0.07	<0.0001	0.015	0.006	<0.0001	0.01	0.014	0.012	<0.0001
Severity of malocclusion (S1; S2)		0.22	0.85	0.77	0.74	0.29	0.72	0.64	0.48	0.64	0.99	0.81	0.85	0.34	0.73	0.78	0.83
Appliance × Severity		0.38	0.2	0.31	0.63	0.42	0.25	0.39	0.66	0.048	0.53	0.22	0.09	0.77	0.81	0.72	0.23
Gender (m; f)		0.005	0.002	0.001	0.023	0.013	0.003	0.002	0.04	0.34	0.001	0.004	0.04	0.02	0.0005	0.001	0.03
Appliance × Gender		0.73	0.87	0.8	0.61	0.94	0.89	0.96	0.48	0.61	0.87	0.81	0.94	0.97	0.9	0.78	0.65
Severity × Gender		0.009	0.006	0.005	0.026	0.046	0.021	0.017	0.026	0.92	0.52	0.62	0.74	0.13	0.08	0.11	0.35
Appliance × Severity × Gender		0.86	0.93	0.83	0.78	0.52	0.87	0.99	0.83	0.71	0.44	0.36	0.7	0.57	0.52	0.44	0.45
Grouped age (≤16 / >16 Y)		0.71	0.33	0.26	0.14	0.49	0.16	0.12	0.035	<0.0001	0.003	0.004	0.003	0.01	0.002	0.002	0.0003
Appliance × Age		0.2	0.31	0.26	0.21	0.12	0.16	0.13	0.08	0.0003	<0.0001	0.0003	0.002	0.001	0.007	0.01	0.006
Severity × Age		0.24	0.32	0.37	0.59	0.44	0.37	0.42	0.63	0.08	0.18	0.35	0.62	0.95	0.75	0.99	0.73
Appliance × Severity × Age		0.91	0.54	0.73	0.76	0.76	0.7	0.92	0.53	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.004	0.25	0.59	0.49	0.046
Gender × Age		0.65	0.80	0.60	0.72	0.35	0.94	0.72	0.76	0.63	0.93	0.58	0.67	0.51	0.91	0.6	0.81
Appliance × Gender × Age		0.16	0.32	0.3	0.46	0.46	0.54	0.51	0.55	0.9	0.26	0.11	0.51	0.5	0.58	0.38	0.82
Severity × Gender × Age		0.42	0.96	0.99	0.5	0.36	0.76	0.79	0.52	0.2	0.3	0.13	0.61	0.78	0.54	0.36	0.83
Appliance × Severity × Gender × Age		0.1	0.26	0.18	0.43	0.16	0.35	0.23	0.42	0.18	0.09	0.04	0.32	0.1	0.32	0.15	0.64
Treatment duration		0.12	0.001	0.0002	0.0004	0.05	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.049	0.011	0.01	0.0045	0.015	0.0002	<0.0001	<0.0001

Overview of significance of effects using non-parametric three-factorial ANOVA with the main effects‚ ‘appliance type’, ‘gender’, and ‘age group’ yielded the result of significantly smaller score-deteriorations towards WSL or cavitation beneath the bracket bases (scores 2, 3, 5, 6, 7) for group A (WIN appliance), compared with group B, while there was no significant difference in terms of WSL formation next to bracket bases (scores 1, 3, 4). Thus, the null-hypothesis of no significant difference in WSL formation following incorporation of either of two different lingual orthodontic appliances was rejected for SBL.