## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Domains**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Conventional**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Conventional**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Low-Friction**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Low-Friction**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Brackets 0.018\({}^{*}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Brackets 0.022\({}^{*}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Brackets 0.018\({}^{*}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Brackets 0.022\({}^{*}\)**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(CI8; \(n=30\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(CI2; \(n=30\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(LF18; \(n=30\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(LF22; \(n=30\))**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Functional limitation**} & Mean & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.6 & 0.3 \\ \cline{2-6}  & SD & 0.6 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.5 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ANOVA F. 1.310; DF: \(3\); \(p=0.275\)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Physical pain \({}^{**}\)**} & Mean & 1.6\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.5\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.3\({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.9\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & SD & 0.6 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.7 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ANOVA F. 5.497; DF: \(3\); \(p<0.01\)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Psychological discomfort \({}^{**}\)**} & Mean & 0.8\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.4\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.3\({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.4\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & SD & 0.9 & 0.6 & 0.8 & 0.6 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ANOVA F. 9.046; DF: \(3\); \(p<0.01\)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Physical disability**} & Mean & 0.6 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 0.3 \\ \cline{2-6}  & SD & 0.7 & 0.6 & 0.5 & 0.5 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ANOVA F. 2.678; DF: \(3\); \(p=0.05\)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Psychological disability \({}^{**}\)**} & Mean & 0.3 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.8 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.1\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & SD & 0.5 & 0.3 & 0.9 & 0.2 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ANOVA F. 12.176; DF: \(3\); \(p<0.01\)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Social disability**} & Mean & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.1 \\ \cline{2-6}  & SD & 0.4 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.4 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{ANOVA F. 1.957; DF: \(3\); \(p=0.124\)} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of the groups in relation to the domains of the quality of life. (\(n=120\)). Figure 3: Comparison of pain measures by groups at different times using the VAS (* Statistically significant difference at \(p<0.05\)). A comparison was made evaluating the type of brackets, without taking into account the slot size. Regarding pain scores, statistically significant differences were observed at 4 h (T0; \(p<0.01\)) and 8 h (T1; \(p<0.05\)), and the group with conventional brackets described a higher level of pain (\(3.8\pm 2.6\); \(4.4\pm 2.4\)) than the group with low-friction brackets (\(2.4\pm 2.6\); \(3.3\pm 2.7\)). Throughout the follow-up period, there is a trend of the groups with low friction (LF) brackets describing a higher level of pain (Table 4). Regarding the impact on the domains of OHRQoL, statistically significant differences are observed in the domains of physical pain (\(p<0.01\)), psychological discomfort (\(p<0.05\)), physical disability (\(p<0.05\)), and psychological disability (\(p<0.05\)). The group with conventional brackets described a greater impact in the domains of physical pain and physical disability (\(1.6\pm 0.6\); \(0.5\pm 0.7\)); however, the group with low-friction brackets described a greater impact in the domains of psychological discomfort and psychological disability (\(0.9\pm 0.8\); \(0.4\pm 0.7\)). We observed a trend of patients in the LF group brackets indicating a greater impact in most domains of OHRQoL compared to patients in the conventional (C) group brackets. The social disability and handicap domains had the least impact on patients (Table 5).