## 3 Results  
The samples were evaluated per adhesive group (\(n\) = 50) and in total (\(n\) = 150) according to their fracture resistance variable (MPa). The average value of the ADH group was 13.66 \(\pm\) 2.81; for FUT, it was 14.48 \(\pm\) 2.88; for SCO, it was 14.98 \(\pm\) 3.96 (Table 2).  
The normality of the distribution of the variables was accepted, and the one-way ANOVA test showed the absence of statistical significance between the groups, except for the means of ADH and SCO, which presented a tendency towards statistical significance \(p\) = 0.057 (Table 3). As a result, the ADH group had lower adhesion strength than the SCO group, and the FUT group values were very close to the control SCO with pre-conditioning.  
The most frequent type of failure was mixed (60.7%), followed by adhesive (27.3%) and cohesive (12%). Using the chi-square test, the variable type of failure and the type of adhesive used were crossed without finding statistical evidence that relates them. Using the ANOVA test, the relationship between the AF values and the type of fracture was checked; the results (Table 4) showed that the values were higher when it was an adhesive fracture (14.66 MPa) or mixed (14.34 MPa) and lower when it was cohesive (13.92 MPa), without any statistical significance.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type of Fracture**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Descriptive Analysis**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Paired Test Significance**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(N\) & **Mean SD** & **95\% CI** & **Adhesive** & **Cohesive** & **Mixed** \\ \hline Adhesive & 41 & 14.66 (3.63) & 13.52–15.81 & - & 0.46  \\ \hline Cohesive & 18 & 13.92 (3.38) & 12.24–15.60 & - & - & 0.606  \\ \hline Mixed & 91 & 14.34 (3.13) & 13.69–15.00 & - & - & - \\ \hline \end{tabular} SD: standard deviation; CI: confidence interval; [FOOTNOTE:]Footnote : footnotemark: [ENDFOOTNOTE]  
\end{table}
Table 4: Comparative inferential analysis: 1-factor ANOVA. Bond strength for resistance to fracture, depending on the type of fracture.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Exploration Form**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Centrality**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variability**} \\ \hline Bond Strength & \multirow{2}{*}{Asymmetry} & \multirow{2}{*}{Cutosis} & KS Test: & \multirow{2}{*}{Mean} & \multirow{2}{*}{Median} & Range & \multirow{2}{*}{SD} & Interquartile \\ Subgroup & & & & \(p\)-value & & & (Min/Max) & & range \\ \hline ADH & 0.76 & 0.03 & 0.209  & 14.48 & 13.57 & 10.34/23.66 & 2.88 & 4.36 \\ \cline{2-7} SCO & 0.12 & 0.65 & 0.504  & 14.37 & 13.4 & 8.74/28.75 & 3.28 & 4.36 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\text{NS}}\): Not significant deviation (\(p\) \(>\) 0.05); the variable is normally distributed; [FOOTNOTE:]Footnote : footnotemark: [ENDFOOTNOTE]  
\end{table}
Table 2: Bond strength descriptive analysis. Variable adhesion strength depending on the type of adhesive (\(n\) = 50) and in the total sample (\(n\) = 150).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type of Adhesive**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Descriptive Statistics**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Paired Test Significance**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Mean (SD)** & **95\% CI** & **ADH** & **FUH** & **SCO** \\ \hline ADH & 13.66 (2.81) & 12.87–14.46 & - & 0.418  \\ \hline FUT & 14.48 (2.89) & 13.67–15.31 & - & - & 0.728  
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparative inferential analysis: 1-factor ANOVA. Adhesion strength for resistance to fracture, depending on the type of adhesive (\(n\) = 50).