## 3 Results  
Forty patients (20 females and 33 males) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The mean ages for the test and the control groups were 47.9 \(\pm\) 14.2 and 39.2 \(\pm\) 9.8 years, respectively. A total of 53 experimental evaluations were performed. In 27 patients, one side of the mouth was measured, and in 13 patients, measurements were made on both sides. The baseline characteristics of the subjects are presented in Table 1.  
All implants were in the sites of premolars and molars. In the test group, there were only three subjects with more than three implants and 20 implants with 1-3 implants. All implants had occlusal contacts in the intercuspal position. No discomfort or pain was experienced by subjects while biting on the instrument. The reliability analysis (ICC) result of 0.87 for the bite force measurements indicated a high consistency between the measurements performed on two different occasions by the same examiner (G.P.). A histogram (Figure 5a) of the study population showed a skewed distribution of the average bite forces, where the \"right tail\" pattern reflected subjects with an \"extremely high\" occluding force (above 600 N). The mean bite force was 258.5 \(\pm\) 175.8 N, while the median bite force was 201.3 \(\pm\) 175.8 N, suggesting that there were fewer \"extremely low\" occluding force levels (below 100 N). This can be seen more clearly when the \"extreme\" values are displayed in a \"box plot\" graph (Figure 5b), where the lines extending from the boxes (whiskers) indicate the variability outside the upper and lower quartiles. The mean occlusal bite force among the members of the test group was lower (236.1 \(\pm\) 162.3 N) than the mean occlusal bite force in the control group (275.7 \(\pm\) 186.2 N), but the difference was not statistically significant (\(p\) = 0.422; Figure 6a). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Group**} & & & \\  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Implant**} & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**No Implant**} & & & & \\ \hline  & & N & \% & Mean & SD & N & \% & Mean & SD & N & \% & Mean & SD & P Val \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Sex} & male & 14 & 42.4 & & & 19 & 57.6 & & 33 & 100.0 & & & \\  & female & 9 & 45.0 & & & 11 & 55.0 & & 20 & 100.0 & & & NS \\ \hline Age & & 23 & & 47.9 & 14.2 & 30 & & 39.2 & 9.8 & 53 & & 43.0 & 12.6 & 0.030 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Bruxism} & No Parafunction & 20 & 51.3 & & & 19 & 48.7 & & 39 & 100.0 & & & \\  & Probable Bruxer & 2 & 33.3 & & & 4 & 66.7 & & 6 & 100.0 & & & NS \\  & Probable clencher & 1 & 12.5 & & & 7 & 87.5 & & 8 & 100.0 & & & \\ \hline Quantity & & & 23 & & 2.7 & 2.8 & 30 & & 53 & & 2.7 & 2.8 & NS \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive analysis of the patients’ demographics. Figure 5: (**a**) Mean bite force in the study; (**b**) median bite force in the study. The samples were arranged from the lowest bite force sample to the highest one, and then, the total list was divided into five equal groups. A cross-tabulation analysis, dividing the subjects into these five equal groups with the increasing bite force, revealed a clear trend between the test and control groups, with more members of the control group in the higher occlusal forces categories (Figure 6b). A significant difference was detected between the maximal bite forces of male and female subjects (\(p\) = 0.030 in the implant group, \(p\) = 0.010 in the no-implant group), regardless of the experimental group (Figure 7). Figure 6: (**a**) Mean occlusal bite forces in the test and control groups; (**b**) cross-tabulation analysis. Implant represents the test group; no implant represents the control group. Dividing the study population into four groups based on the number of implants (1, 2, 3, and above 3) did not reveal any significant difference in the bite force (\(p=0.582\); Table 2, Figure 8).