. 2022 Sep 6;58(9):1230. doi: 10.3390/medicina58091230

Table 4.

Traditional pouring versus 3D printing comparison of the analyzed indices using the Mann–Whitney U test.

Orthodontic Analysis		Traditional Pouring Versus 3D Printing	Mean Rank	p-Value ^a
Pont index	Interpremolar arch widths	Traditional pouring	2.50	0.020 *
	Interpremolar arch widths	3D printing	6.50	0.020 *
	Intermolar arch widths	Traditional pouring	2.50	0.020 *
	Intermolar arch widths	3D printing	6.50	0.020 *
	The difference between the calculated and the measured interpremolar arch widths values	Traditional pouring	6.00	0.083
		3D printing	3.00	0.083
	The difference between the calculated and the measured intermolar arch widths values	Traditional pouring	6.00	0.059
		3D printing	3.00	0.059
Linder–Harth index	Interpremolar arch widths	Traditional pouring	2.50	0.021 *
	Interpremolar arch widths	3D printing	6.50	0.021 *
	Intermolar arch widths	Traditional pouring	2.50	0.020 *
	Intermolar arch widths	3D printing	6.50	0.020 *
	The difference between the calculated and the measured interpremolar arch widths values	Traditional pouring	6.00	0.083
		3D printing	3.00	0.083
	The difference between the calculated and the measured intermolar arch widths values	Traditional pouring	6.13	0.059
		3D printing	2.88	0.059
Bolton’s analysis	Anterior ratio	Traditional pouring	5.75	0.149
	Anterior ratio	3D printing	3.25	0.149
	Overall ratio	Traditional pouring	5.63	0.189
	Overall ratio	3D printing	3.38	0.189

^a The Mann–Whitney U test was used. * The significance level was set at 0.05.