Table 2.
Comparison of shear bond strengths (MPa) between different nano adhesive groups
| Subgroups compared | Mean (SD) | ANOVA F | ANOVA P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Group A | Group B | |||
| A1 and B1 | 15.64b (0.96) | 20.25a (0.56) | 17.382 | 0.001* |
| A2 and B2 | 12.75b (0.43) | 16.75a (0.87) | 13.237 | 0.001* |
| A3 and B3 | 9.26b (0.54) | 12.96a (0.71) | 15.218 | 0.001* |
| A4 and B4 | 5.98b (0.08) | 9.21a (0.16) | 15.321 | 0.001* |
| ANOVA F | 7.214 | 8.237 | ||
| ANOVA P | 0.032 | 0.041 | ||
| Tukey post hoc | A 1>A4, A3 | B1>B4, B3 | ||
a/bP≤0.001 according to post-hoc Tukey’s tests, ANOVA: Analysis of variance; SD: Standard deviation, Group A: The brackets were bonded by NBA without additives. Group B: The brackets were bonded by NBA containing AgNPs with concentration 0.05%, A1, B1=zero thermal or loading cycles, A2, B2=500 thermal and 100,000 loading cycles; A3, B3=1000 thermal and 200,000 loading cycles; A4, B4=2000 thermal and 400,000 loading cycles