Table 1.
Force distribution on maxillary dentition according to tooth site and MADs.
| Site | Incisors | Canines | Premolars | Molars | Comparison between Site |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | p-Value † | ||
| model 1 | 1.33 | 0.76 | 22.63 | 3.94 | 41.20 | 1.63 | 51.53 | 5.24 | <0.0001 | M > P > C > I | |
| model 2 | 2.33 | 0.76 | 3.40 | 1.48 | 8.70 | 1.53 | 9.80 | 1.65 | <0.0001 | M, P > C > I | |
| model 3 | 0.27 | 0.45 | 7.73 | 1.34 | 16.43 | 1.28 | 4.00 | 0.74 | <0.0001 | P > C > M > I | |
| Comparison between models p-value † |
2 > 1 > 3 | 1 > 3 > 2 | 1 > 3 > 2 | 1 > 2 > 3 | |||||||
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||||||||
Model 1, single-layer MAD; model 2, double-layer MAD; model 3, core-reinforced multilayer MAD; †, Kruskal–Wallis test and post hoc Bonferroni test were performed; p < 0.05, significant difference. I, incisor; C, canine; P, premolar; M, molar.