## 3 Results  
Descriptive statistics were performed. Means, medians, and standard deviations are shown in Table 3. Factors were Independent. According to the Shapiro-Wilk test used for normality assessment, there were few significant values for the dependent variables and groups \(p\) < 0.05. Therefore, the data is not normally distributed and considered using a nonparametric variant of the ANOVA test, the Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in fracture resistance load by connectors' dimension. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group** & **A** & **B** & **C** & **D** \\ \hline  & n & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 \\ \hline Maximum Load & Median & 1251.32 & 1136.06 & 1016.78 & 853.59 \\ (N) & Mean & 1176.9 & 1159.6 & 1161 & 904.7 \\ \hline  & 95\% Confidence Interval & 989.22–1364.64 & 1021.50–1297.71 & 920.50–1401.48 & 742.61–1066.85 \\ \hline  & SD & 262.4 & 193.06 & 336.19 & 226.6 \\ \hline Elastic Modulus & Median & 533.92 & 451.09 & 440.57 & 394.83 \\ (MPa) & Mean & 537.62 & 451.9 & 421.79 & 359.5 \\ \hline  & 95\% Confidence Interval & 488.91–586.34 & 418.79–485.01 & 377.27–466.32 & 302.09–416.91 \\ \hline  & SD & 68.1 & 46.28 & 62.24 & 80.25 \\ \hline Yield Strength (Offset 0.2\%) (MPa) & Median & 104.44 & 82.21 & 67.48 & 48.00 \\ \hline  & Mean & 94.14 & 84.78 & 67.77 & 37.98 \\ \hline  & 95\% Confidence Interval & 67.98–120.29 & 79.72–89.85 & 61.89–73.65 & 20.81–55.15 \\  & for Mean & & & & \\ \hline  & SD & 36.56 & 7.08 & 8.22 & 24 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Median, mean, 95% confidence interval, standard deviation (SD), and sample size for the maximum load (N), elastic modulus (MPa), yield strength (MPa), and compressive strengths (MPa) by connectors’ dimensions. Figure 2: Example of a type 1 fracture (single mesial crown fracture, mesial to distal direction, without connector fracture). The homogeneity of variance is a key factor in the study analysis. The data were homogenous for the maximum load and modulus (\(p>0.05\)), which is favorable for the study analysis. However, for yield and compressive strength, the data were heterogeneous (\(p<0.05\)), potentially affecting the conclusions. Preliminary screening for outliers showed few outside the favorable range recommended by [PERSON] (1977), [PERSON] (1983), and [PERSON] (1985) [27; 28; 29]. The outliers were managed by imputation, replacing the outlier in question with the median according to the method described by [PERSON] (1977), [PERSON] (1986), and [PERSON] (1987) [29; 30; 31]. After managing outliers, there were no outliers in maximum load and compressive strengths, while few outliers were in the modulus and yield strength dependent variables within the acceptable range, as shown in Figure 3.  
The independent-sample Kruskal-Wallis test was as follows: The maximum load (N) was 7.374, df = 3, \(p\) = 0.061; The modulus (MPa) was 22.365 df = 3, \(p<0.001\); for yield strength (Offset 0.2%) (MPa) was 24.221, df = 3, \(p<0.001\); for compressive strength (MPa) was 26.770, df = 3, \(p<0.001\). Figure 4 and Table 4 show the pairwise comparisons of group results. Figure 3: Box plot of means of maximum load, elastic modulus, yield strength, and compressive strength by connectors’ dimension. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Group** & **A** & **B** & **C** & **D** \\ \hline Compressive & & & & & \\ Strength (MPa) & Median & 153.35 & 110.30 & 76.28 & 56.61 \\ \hline  & Mean & 144.23 & 112.58 & 87.09 & 60 \\ \hline  & 95\% Confidence & & & & \\ Interval & 121.23–167.24 & 99.17–125.99 & 69.05–105.14 & 49.25–70.75 \\  & for Mean & & & & \\ \hline SD & 32.16 & 18.74 & 25.22 & 15.03 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._Figure 4: Pairwise comparisons of groups.