Sentence examples for mean failure loads from inspiring English sources

ANOVA revealed a significant difference (P≤.0001) between the mean failure loads of different connector designs.

The mean failure loads and standard deviations were as follows: 943 ± 151 N for Design I; 746 ± 106 N for Design II; 944 ± 144 N for Design III; and 673 ± 55 N for Design IV.

The biofilm group had ~70% higher mean failure loads and 93% higher stiffness compared with the control group.

The mean failure load was 4032 N (SD 370 N).

Within the limitations of this study and for the experimental ceramic tested, as the radius at the gingival embrasure increased from 0.25 to 0.90 mm, the mean failure load increased by 140%.

The mean failure Load for Group 1 was 81.34 N ± 11.972 N SD.

The mean failure load of the control group was 23.5 ± 4.9 N, while that of the biofilm group was 39.6 ± 6.7 N (P < 0.05), an increase of almost 70%.

Results: The mean cortical failure loads were as follows: Kinsa (219 N), Kinsa RC (222 N), BioRaptor 2.3 PK (172 N), TwinFix PK FT 5.5 (491 N) and 6.5 (503 N), BioCleat (218 N), Healix Peek (407 N), VersaLok (376 N), BioKnotless (249 N), BioKnotless BR (265 N), Corkscrew FT III (386 N), SwiveLock C (712 N), and PEEK SutureTak (168 N).

According to the manufacturer's specifications (MATSUDAIKA KOGYO CO., LTD, Tokyo, Japan), the mean ultimate failure loads of the conventional suture, hollow suture, and FWRM are 41.7 N (S.D. 2.2 N), 67.0 N (S.D. 2.8 N), and 67.2 N (S.D. 4.2 N), respectively.

Mean ultimate failure load was increased in hydrogels augmented with PRP group at 2 weeks.

At 4 weeks, hydrogel alone reached a similar mean ultimate failure load to hydrogels augmented with PRP and ADSCs.