# Compressive Strength Comparison of Different Orthodontic Metal Bracket Systems
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups**} & **Median, (Minimum-Maximum) (N)** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Significance (\(p\)) with Bonferroni**} \\  & & & **Conferroni** \\ \hline Experience & 778.05 (420.9–915.5) & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.005**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} \\ Mini Sprint II & 456.9 (263.1–511.65) & & & \\ \hline Mini Diamond & 240.8 (97.82–301.4) & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} \\ Experience & 778.05 (420.9–915.5) & & & \\ \hline BioQuick & 296.3 (114.57–554.65) & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} \\ Experience & 778.05 (420.9–915.5) & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] & 748.25 (396.1–1041.8) & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} \\ Mini Sprint II & 456.9 (263.1–511.65) & & & \\ \hline Mini Sprint II & 456.9 (263.1–511.65) & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.002**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.017**} \\ Mini Diamond & 240.8 (97.82–301.4) & & & \\ \hline Experience & 778.05 (420.9–915.5) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.073} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.726} \\ [PERSON] & 748.25 (396.1–1041.8) & & & \\ [PERSON] & 748.25 (396.1–1041.8) & & & \\ \hline Mini Diamond & 240.8 (97.82–301.4) & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} \\ [PERSON] & 748.25 (396.1–1041.8) & & & \\ \hline Mini Sprint II & 456.9 (263.1–511.65) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.060} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.602} \\ BioQuick & 296.3 (114.57–554.65) & & & \\ BioQuick & 296.3 (114.57–554.65) & & & \\ \hline BioQuick & 296.3 (114.57–554.65) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.001} & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**<0.001**} \\ BioQuick & 296.3 (114.57–554.65) & & & \\ \hline \(p\) = 0.05; significant values are shown in bold. N: Newton. & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Significance (\(p\)) Values and Significance (\(p\)) Values with Bonferroni Correction for the Mann-Whitney U Test for the Ultimate Strength Point Experiment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Total Sample Size**} & **Test Statistic** & **Degrees of Freedom** & **Significance Value** \\ \hline
80 & 60.43 & 4 & 0.0001 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for the Ultimate Strength Point Experiment. Pairwise comparisons of the groups are presented in Table 8. Upon examination of Table 8, significant differences were observed among the MD-MS, MD-E, MD-D, BQ-E, BQ-D, and MS-D groups. Although most of the samples fell off from the tip of the forceps due to plastic deformation, some of them experienced debonding at the adhesive interface. The bond strength results obtained from the tests completed by the debonding of the bracket from the enamel surface are presented in Table 9.  
The results of this study led to the rejection of the null hypothesis, indicating that there are significant differences in the resistance to plastic deformation and compressive strengths among the five types of metal brackets tested. In experiments resulting with debonding, the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scoring was conducted based on the amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth surface. All debonded samples exhibited an ARI score of 3 (Figure 9), and the relevant scores were