## 3 Results
### Maximum Pressure Data  
Significant differences were found in all the regions of interest, except for the lesser toes and the first MTH (Table 3).  
The post hoc comparison between the AFSE CFO and the shed without CFO condition revealed an increased pressure in the second toe (\(p=0.002\)), lesser MTH (\(p<0.001\)), midfoot (\(p=0.001\)) and rearfoot (\(p<0.001\)) with AFSE CFO.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Critical** & **Supra-Threshold** & **Percentage of the** \\  & & **Threshold (t)** & **Probability Value (\(p\))** & **Stance Phase (\%)** \\ \hline Mediolateral Displacement & Barefoot vs. AFSE & 3.127 & \(p<0.001\) & 14–38 \\  & Barefoot vs. Cut-out & 3.136 & \(p=0.036\) & 29–35 \\  & AFSE vs. Cut-out & 3.228 & \(p>0.05\) & - \\ Anteroposterior Displacement & Barefoot vs. AFSE & 3.339 & \(p<0.001\) & 16–42 \\  & Barefoot vs. Cut-out & 3.368 & \(p<0.001\) & 23–37 \\  & Barefoot vs. Cut-out & 3.368 & \(p<0.001\) & 90–92 \\  & AFSE vs. Cut-out & 3.420 & \(p=0.018\) & 16–20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Statistical analysis of mediolateral and anteroposterior displacement between 3 conditions.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Maximum**} \\  & & **Pressure (Kg/cm\({}^{2}\))** & & & \\ \hline  & **Barefoot (1)** & **AFSE (2)** & **Cut-out (3)** & \(p\)**Value** & \(\mathbf{\eta^{2}}\) \\ \hline Hallux & 1.98 [1.81–2.16] *3 & 1.99 [1.78–2.19] *3 & 1.69 [1.55–1.82] *2 & 0.000 & 0.346 \\ Second toe & 0.71 [0.57–0.85] *2 & 0.96 [0.76–1.15] *1.3 & 0.72 [0.62–0.81] *2 & 0.002 & 0.276 \\ Lesser toes & 0.33 [1.89–0.47] & 0.36 [0.22–0.50] & 0.39 [0.27–0.51] & 0.731 & 0.010 \\ MTH 1 & 2.22 [2.07–2.37] & 2.28 [2.13–2.43] & 2.25 [2.10–2.39] & 0.703 & 0.014 \\ MTH 2 & 2.69 [2.48–2.90] *3 & 2.64 [2.44–2.83] *3 & 2.38 [2.21–2.54] *1.2 & 0.000 & 0.349 \\ Lesser MTHs & 2.21 [2.06–2.36] *2.3 & 2.34 [2.21–2.48] *1.3 & 2.03 [1.90–2.16] *1.2 & 0.000 & 0.600 \\ Midfoot & 1.49 [1.28–1.69] *2.3 & 1.75 [1.51–1.99] *1 & 1.94 [1.63–2.25] *1 & 0.001 & 0.491 \\ Rearfoot & 2.18 [2.05–2.31] *2.3 & 2.59 [2.38–2.80] *1.3 & 2.85 [2.56–3.13] *1.2 & 0.000 & 0.484 \\ \hline  & & **Maximum** & & & \\  & & **Pressure Ratio** & & & \\ \hline  & **Barefoot (1)** & **AFSE (2)** & **Cut-out (3)** & \(p\)**Value** & \(\mathbf{\eta^{2}}\) \\ \hline Hallux/ First MTPH & 0.96 [0.85–1.07] *2.3 & 0.9 [0.8–1.0] *1.3 & 0.8 [0.71–0.88] *1.2 & 0.002 & 0.279 \\ First MTPH/Second MTPH & 0.83 [0.77–0.9] *3 & 0.87 [0.82–0.92] *3 & 1 [0.91–1.02] *1.2 & 0.001 & 0.333 \\ First MTPH/ Lesser MTPHs & 1.00 [0.93–1.09] *3 & 1 [0.91–1.04] *3 & 1.15 [1.06–1.23] *1.2 & 0.000 & 0.291 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Each of the asterisks and numbers in the table represent the conditions between which the difference is observed.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Plantar pressure variable associated with the eight regions of interest and maximum pressure ratio (mean and 95% interval confidence).  
The cut-out CFO resulted in a decreased pressure in the second MTH and lesser toe region (\(p<0.001\)) as well as increased pressure in the midfoot (\(p=0.001\)) and heel (\(p<0.001\)) when compared to the shed without a CFO condition.  
Finally, when comparing both orthoses, it was observed that the cut-out CFO resulted in a lower pressure in the hallux, second toe, second MTH, and lesser MTH, as well as an increase in the pressure in the heel.