## 3 Results  
Forty-five samples were assessed, 15 of each material, PMMA--Temp Basic\({}^{\circledR}\), composite resin--Lava Ultimate\({}^{\circledR}\), and PEEK--Tecno Med Mineral\({}^{\circledR}\), with the objective of testing the fracture resistance expressed in newtons (N). Figure 4 shows the distribution of all fracture resistance measurements. Fracture resistance in PMMA (Temp Basic(r) material) ranged from 1216.0 N to 1461.2 N, with a mean of 1300.4 N (SD = 97.09). In the composite material (Lava Ultimate(r)), fracture resistance varied between 1343.5 N and 1490.6 N, with a mean of 1425.9 N (SD = 49.03). Lastly, in the PEEK (Tecno Med Mineral(r) material), fracture resistance ranged from 2294.8 N to 2451.7 N, with a mean of 2359.5 (SD = 50.01). ANOVA tests detected statistically significant differences among the types of material included in this study, F\({}_{(2,42)}\) = 1056.2, \(p\)! 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.98, with a high effect size. Tukey tests detected statistically significant differences among all material types, with higher resistance in the PEEK material type, followed by the composite and finally PMMA (Table 3). Statistically significant results were also found in the comparison by type of fracture, F\({}_{(2,44)}\) = 1467.0, \(p\)! 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.99, with higher resistance values in type III (M = 2359.5; SD = 50.0), followed by type V (M = 1434.7; SD = 49.0) and type IV (M = 1281.7; SD = 75.5). Tukey tests showed significant differences among all types of fracture (Table 4). The type of material was associated with the type of fracture (\(p\)! 0.001). Type III fracture was exclusive to the PEEK Tecno Med Mineral(r) (100%), type IV fracture was associated with the PMMA Temp Basic(r) material (78.6%), and type V fracture was associated with the Lava Ultimate(r) composite material with 75% prevalence (Table 5). All types of material obtained fracture resistances higher than functional (?300.8 N) and extreme (?966.9 N) masticatory forces, with statistically significant results, as shown in Table 6. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **M** & **SD** & **Threshold 300.1 N** & **Threshold 966.9 N** \\ \hline PMMA—Temp Basic® & 1300.4 & 97.1 & t\({}_{(4)}\) = 230.5 (\(p\)! 0.001) & t\({}_{(4)}\) = 74.5 (\(p\)! 0.002) \\ Composite Resin & 1425.9 & 49.0 & t\({}_{(4)}\) = 421.7 (\(p\)! 0.001) & t\({}_{(4)}\) = 170.6 (\(p\)! 0.001) \\ —Lava Ultimate® & 2359.5 & 50.0 & t\({}_{(4)}\) = 1350.4 (\(p\)! 0.001) & t\({}_{(4)}\) = 907.1 (\(p\)! 0.001) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of fracture resistance by material type. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **M** & **SD** & **ANOVA** \\ \hline Type III & 2294.0 & 2451.7 & 2359.5 & 50.0 & F\({}_{(2-12)}\) = 1467.0 \\ Type IV & 1216.0 & 1422.0 & 1281.7 & 75.5 & \(p\)! 0.001 \\ Type V & 1343.5 & 1490.6 & 1434.7 & 49.0 & \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.99 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Tukey test showed significant differences among all types of fractures III vs. IV (\(p\)! 0.001); III vs. V (\(p\)! 0.001); IV vs. V (\(p\)! 0.008).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of fracture strength by fracture type. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Type III** & **Type IV** & **Type V** & **Fisher Test** \\ \hline PMMA—Temp Basic® & 0 (0\%) & 11 (78.6\%) & 4 (25.0\%) & \\ Composite Resin—Lava Ultimate® & 0 (0\%) & 3 (21.4\%) & 12 (75.0\%) & \\ PEEK—Tecno Med Mineral® & 15 (100\%) & 0 (0\%) & 0 (0\%) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} All types of material obtained fracture resistances higher than functional (?300.8 N) and extreme (?966.9 N) masticatory forces, with statistically significant results, as shown in Table 6.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Association between material and fracture types.