Table 3.
Comparison of biaxial fracture forces amongst different ceramic materials.
| Ceramic Type | Oral Hygiene Tools Type | Fracture Resistance (MPa) Mean (SD) |
Overall Fracture Resistance (MPa) | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vita Triluxe Forte | Regular toothbrush with toothpaste | 43.85 (12.15) | 43.74 | 0.073 * |
| Electronic toothbrush with toothpaste | 42.08 (44.48) | |||
| Mouthwash | 43.42 (13.42) | |||
| Vita Enamic | Regular toothbrush with toothpaste | 50.79 (29.32) | 48.19 | 0.420 |
| Electronic toothbrush with toothpaste | 47.16 (25.30) | |||
| Mouthwash | 46.63 (35.45) | |||
| IPS e.max CAD | Regular toothbrush with toothpaste | 98.29 (16.10) | 96.10 | 0.076 * |
| Electronic toothbrush with toothpaste | 89.79 (11.53) | |||
| Mouthwash | 100.26 (17.31) |
* Different superscript letters suggest statistically significant differences in each category (p < 0.05) as determined by ANOVA and Bonferroni tests.