Table 3.

Kruskal‐Wallis tests for differences in muscle leverage among molar emergence categories with post hoc comparisons between molar emergence categories

Bite Point	Masseter m.	Temporalis m.	Med. Pterygoid m.
I1/i1	chi‐sq = 43.04	chi‐sq = 27.45	chi‐sq = 8.83
	p < .0001	p < .001	p = .0316
C/c	chi‐sq = 36.11	chi‐sq = 33.70	chi‐sq = 6.92
	p < .0001	p < .001	p = .0744
P4/dp4	chi‐sq = 5.12	chi‐sq = 51.69	chi‐sq = 1.83
	p = .1634	p < .001	p = .6082
M1	chi‐sq = 2.39	chi‐sq = 29.79	chi‐sq = 5.08
	p = .3026	p < .001	p = .0788
M2	chi‐sq = 1.55	chi‐sq = 4.53	chi‐sq = 0.68
	p = .2136	p = .0333	p = .4089

	M1 em.	M2 em.	M3 em.
Post‐hoc comparisons of masseter m. leverage at the I1/i1 bite point
dp4 em.	.0031	<.0001	<.0001
M1 em.	‐	.1148	.0013
M2 em.	‐	‐	.0525
Post‐hoc comparisons of masseter m. leverage at the C/c bite point
dp4 em.	.0052	<.0001	<.0001
M1 em.	‐	.0545	.0040
M2 em.	‐	‐	.2417
Post‐hoc comparisons of temporalis m. leverage at the I1/i1 bite point
dp4 em.	.2300	<.0001	.0001
M1 em.	‐	.0053	.0193
M2 em.	‐	‐	.3952
Post‐hoc comparisons of temporalis m. leverage at the C/c bite point
dp4 em.	.1605	<.0001	<.0001
M1 em.	‐	.0033	.0033
M2 em.	‐	‐	.9419
Post‐hoc comparisons of temporalis m. leverage at the P4/dp4 bite point
dp4 em.	.0060	<.0001	<.0001
M1 em.	‐	.0025	.0004
M2 em.	‐	‐	.6725

Post‐hoc comparisons of temporalis m. leverage at the M1 bite point
	M2 em.	M3 em.
M1 em.	<.0001	<.0001
M2 em.	‐	.1912

Post‐hoc comparisons of temporalis m. leverage at the M2 bite point
	M3 em.
M2 em.	.0338

P‐values listed in bold indicate statisticallt significant values (alpha=0.05); em.,emerged.