Table 2.
Force distribution on mandibular dentition according to tooth site and MADs.
| Site | Incisors | Canines | Premolars | Molars | between Site | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | p-Value † | ||
| Model 1 | 28.27 | 5.43 | 28.17 | 2.04 | 47.90 | 2.32 | 11.23 | 2.05 | <0.0001 | P > I, C > M | |
| Model 2 | 11.07 | 1.55 | 16.93 | 1.82 | 7.53 | 1.07 | 2.70 | 0.92 | <0.0001 | C > I > P > M | |
| Model 3 | 7.30 | 1.06 | 4.07 | 0.91 | 8.60 | 1.04 | 0.70 | 0.60 | <0.0001 | P > I > C > M | |
| between models p-value † |
1 > 2 > 3 | 1 > 2 > 3 | 1 > 3> 2 | 1 >2 > 3 | |||||||
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.001 | <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, significantly different. I, incisor; C, canine; P, premolar; M, molar.