## 3 Results
### Incisor (1.1)
This trimming effect is also seen in thermofermed aligners, with straight-trimmed models exerting much higher forces compared to scalloped-trimmed ones. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Point** & **Aligner** & **n** & **Mean** & **SD** & **F (df1, df2)** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Eta-Squared** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Gingival} & AS & 10,752 & 1.4 & 0.2 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & F22 & 10,752 & 3.2 & 0.4 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & NHH & 10,752 & 3.2 & 0.4 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & NHVH & 10,752 & 3.2 & 0.4 & & 297,934.011 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.957} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.957} \\  & NHVH & 10,752 & 7.2 & 0.6 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & NHZ & 10,752 & 2.8 & 0.3 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Middle} & AS & 10,752 & 4.3 & 0.5 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & F22 & 10,752 & 5.3 & 0.7 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & NHH & 10,752 & 5.9 & 0.4 & & 98,293.072 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.878} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.878} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.878} \\  & NHVH & 10,752 & 8.7 & 0.6 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & NHZ & 10,752 & 5.5 & 0.4 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Incisal} & AS & 10,752 & 6.3 & 0.8 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & F22 & 10,752 & 7.8 & 0.7 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & NHH & 10,752 & 10.1 & 0.8 & 53,640.504 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.797} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.797} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.797} \\  & NHVH & 10,752 & 9.8 & 0.6 & & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & NHZ & 10,752 & 8.0 & 0.6 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{1}\) NHVH (NOXI Horizontal Field High); NHH (NOXI Horizontal High), NHZ (NOXI Horizontal Zenith), F22 (straight gingival margin—cut at the zenith); AS ( scalloped gingival margin); N, sample size; SD, standard deviation; F (df1, df2), F-distribution;
* \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05 (statistically significant).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of strength at each point among aligners in 1.1. Robust One-Way ANOVA Brown–Forsythe \({}^{1}\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Material**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Point**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Initial Force**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Final Force**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Stress Relaxation**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Median**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**25 th**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**75 th**} \\  & & **(N)** & & **(N)** & & **(\%)** & & **(\%)** & & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{AS} & Gingival & 2.0 & 1.0 & 50.0 & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Middle & 6.6 & 3.5 & 51.7 & & 50.3 & 50.0 & 1.3 & 49.2 & 51.7 & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Incisal & 10.8 & 5.5 & 49.2 & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{F22} & Gingival & 5.2 & 2.0 & 51.9 & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Middle & 6.6 & 3.5 & 47.6 & 46.8 & 47.6 & 5.5 & 41.0 & 51.9 & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Incisal & 5.5 & 8 & 41.0 & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{NHH} & Gingival & 6.0 & 2.8 & 53.3 & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Middle & 9.2 & 5.6 & 38.0 & 44.7 & 42.9 & 7.8 & 38.0 & 53.3 & 0.212 \\ \cline{2-11}  & Incisal & 16.3 & 9.5 & 42.9 & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{NHVH} & Gingival & 11.7 & 6.5 & 44.4 & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Middle & 13.7 & 8.7 & 40.1 & 40.7 & 40.1 & 3.5 & 37.4 & 44.4 & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Incisal & 14.7 & 9.7 & 37.4 & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{NHZ} & Gingival & 4.3 & 2.5 & 46.5 & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Middle & 8.8 & 5.2 & 40.9 & 42.5 & 40.9 & 3.5 & 40.0 & 46.5 & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Incisal & 12.5 & 7.5 & 40.0 & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Initial stress values, final stress values, stress decay, and a comparison of strength decay among aligners tested on element 1.1, assessed using the independent sample Kruskal–Wallis test. Figure 5: _Cont._