## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mixed**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bracket/Adhesive**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **No Failure–Success** \\ **(100\%)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{2-9}  & & \(\mathbf{n(\%)}\) & \(\mathbf{p}\)**-Value** & \(\mathbf{n(\%)}\) & \(\mathbf{p}\)**-Value** & \(\mathbf{n(\%)}\) & \(\mathbf{p}\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Thermocycling Groups} & Group 5: G5\_Curing technique1 & 3(75) & & 0(0.00) & & 1(25) & \\ \cline{2-9}  & Group 6: G5\_Curing technique2 & 3(75) & & 0(0.00) & & 1(25) & \\ \cline{2-9}  & Group 9: G7\_Curing technique1 & 0(0.00) & & 0(0.00) & & 4(100) & 0.029 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) \\ \cline{2-9}  & Group 10: G7\_Curing technique2 & 0(0.00) & & 0(0.00) & & 4(100) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Non-Thermocycling Groups \\ \end{tabular} } & Group 3: G5\_Curing technique1 & 4(100) & & 0(0.00) & & 0(0.0) & \\ \cline{2-9}  & Group 4: G5\_Curing technique2 & 3(75) & & 1(25) & & 0(0.0) & \\ \cline{2-9}  & Group 7: G7\_Curing technique1 & 0(0.00) & & 0(0.00) & & 4(100) & 0.007 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) \\ \cline{2-9}  & Group 8: G7\_Curing technique2 & 1(25) & & 0(0.00) & & 3(75) & \\ \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{\(p\)-value} & 0.564 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & 0.78 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & 0.381 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted; \({}^{\text{b}}\) Mann–Whitney U test;
* significant at a significance level of 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of mixed, bracket/adhesive and no failure–success (100%) outcome incidence between thermocycling and non-thermocycling groups. In Table 5, the comparison of bracket/adhesive outcomes among different groups showed no statistically significant differences in the thermocycling groups, with all groups exhibiting no instances of bracket/adhesive issues (_p_-value = 1.0). Similarly, most non-thermocycling groups did not report any bracket/adhesive problems. However, in group 4 (g5_curing technique2), 25% of cases exhibited such issues, although this was not statistically significant (_p_-value = 0.392). The analysis comparing the outcomes of \"no failure-success (100%)\" among different groups revealed some noteworthy findings (Table 5). In the thermocycling groups, groups 5 (g5_curing technique1) and 6 (g5_curing technique2) had similar results, with 25% of cases showing no failure or 100% success, although this difference was not statistically significant (_p_-value = 0.029). Conversely, groups 9 (g7_curing technique2) and 10 (g7_curing technique2) in the thermocycling groups exhibited 100% success rates, which were significantly higher compared to the other groups (_p_-value < 0.05). In the non-thermocycling groups, significant differences were observed between groups 3 (g5_curing technique1) and 8 (g7_curing technique2), with group 3 having no instances of failure or 100% success compared to group 8, which had a 75% success rate. This difference was statistically significant (_p_-value = 0.007). In comparing the mode of failure for brackets across thermocycling and non-thermocycling groups, the obtained _p_-values of 0.564, 0.78 and 0.381 for mixed, bracket/adhesive and no failure-success (100%), respectively, indicate no significant difference in crack length between the two groups. In evaluating the mode of bond failure categorized as \"mixed\", the results demonstrate notable trends across both thermocycling and non-thermocycling groups (Figure 6). Among the thermocycling groups, groups 5 (g5_curing technique1) and 6 (g5_curing technique2) exhibit a similar distribution, with 25% showing an absence of mixed failure and 75% indicating its presence. Conversely, groups 9 (g7_curing technique1) and 10 (g7_curing technique2) in the thermocycling category displayed a complete absence of mixed failures, with all cases showing successful bonding.