Fig. 3

a Peak torque. Peak torque values at catastrophic failure (mean ± SD). The ABL construct had a significantly higher peak torque than all other constructs (ABL > ABN, BN, UN, p ≤ 0.0002). The BN construct had a significantly higher peak torque than the ABN construct (p = 0.044). The constructs with the lowest peak torque to failure were ABN and the UL construct though no significant difference was noted between the two groups (p = 0.375). Significant differences indicated by connecting lines are denoted by ^∙p < 0.001, ^▲p < 0.01, and ⁺p < 0.05. b Angular displacement. Peak rotation/angular displacement at catastrophic failure (mean ± SD). The ABL construct had a significantly higher angular displacement at peak torque than the BN and ABN constructs (p ≤ 0.007). The UL construct had a significantly higher angular displacement at peak torque than the ABN construct (p = 0.023). No statistically significant difference was noted between the UL and BN constructs (p = 0.606). Additionally, no significant difference was noted between the ABL and UL (p = 0.132) constructs in angular displacement at peak torque. Significant differences indicated by connecting lines are denoted by ^∙p < 0.001, ^▲p < 0.01, and ⁺p < 0.05. c Torsional stiffness. Torsional stiffness of the 4 constructs (mean ± SD). The ABN construct was significantly stiffer than the ABL and UL constructs (p ≤ 0.007). No significant difference was detected between the ABN and BN constructs in torsional stiffness (p = 0.588). Additionally, no significant difference was detected between the ABL and BN constructs (p = 0.144). The UL construct had significantly less torsional stiffness than all other constructs (p ≤ 0.004). Significant differences indicated by connecting lines are denoted by ^∙p < 0.001, ^▲p < 0.01, and ⁺p < 0.05