## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(I) V2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(J) V2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean Values**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Standard**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Power**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Upper**}} \\ \cline{3-4} \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & & & **Lower** & **Upper** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Control group} & 7 days & \(-0.229414\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(-0.28645\) & \(-0.17238\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 14 days & \(-0.291271\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(-0.34831\) & \(-0.23423\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 28 days & \(-0.349271\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(-0.40631\) & \(-0.29223\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 7 days after withdrawal & \(-0.358741\) * & \(0.027897\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(-0.44891\) & \(-0.31034\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{After 7 days} & Control group & \(0.229414\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(0.17238\) & \(0.28645\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 14 days & \(-0.061857\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(0.028\) & \(-0.11889\) & \(-0.00482\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 28 days & \(-0.119857\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(-0.17689\) & \(-0.06282\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 7 days after withdrawal & \(-0.120237\) * & \(0.026717\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(-0.19879\) & \(-0.06992\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{After 14 days} & Control group & \(0.291271\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(0.23423\) & \(0.34831\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 7 days & \(0.061857\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(0.028\) & \(0.00482\) & \(0.11889\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 28 days & \(-0.058000\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(0.045\) & \(-0.11504\) & \(-0.00096\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 7 days after withdrawal & \(-0.062013\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(-0.00652\) & \(0.11355\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{After 28 days} & Control group & \(0.349271\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(0.29223\) & \(0.40631\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 7 days & \(0.119857\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(0.06282\) & \(0.17689\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 14 days & \(0.058000\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(0.045\) & \(0.00096\) & \(0.11504\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 7 days after withdrawal & \(0.062023\) * & \(0.022067\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(0.62096\) & \(0.15783\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{7 days after withdrawal} & Control group & \(0.291661\) * & \(0.022097\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(0.23426\) & \(0.34641\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 7 days & \(0.061637\) * & \(0.022097\) & \(0.028\) & \(0.00192\) & \(0.11877\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & 14 days & \(-0.058020\) * & \(0.022097\) & \(0.045\) & \(-0.11524\) & \(-0.00097\) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & 28 days & \(-0.062013\) * & \(0.022097\) & \(<\)0.01 & \(-0.00562\) & \(0.11271\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* The difference in means is significant at the 0.05 significance level.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference post hoc test for multiple comparisons. connecting the amide groups. Specifically, the material becomes more hydrophilic as the chain length between these amide groups becomes shorter. Examinations of the test specimens' hardness reveal those changes in Surface 2's hardness post-immersion in a liquid environment are negligible. In contrast, Surface 1's hardness, particularly the side facing the lower plaster half-mold, demonstrates more notable variations. This hardness increase can be attributed to liquid penetrating into the formed pores, rendering the polymer's surface layer more pliable. Consequently, this pliancy leads to higher tip rebound, indicative of greater hardness. In the study of [PERSON]. [58], their surface hardness was evaluated using a Vickers microhardness tester with a digital display. This was performed to achieve a level and smooth reflective surface, ensuring uniform load distribution, and preventing any scratches that could affect measurement precision. Conducting the surface hardness test is crucial, as it unveils the material's resistance to scratching. The study of [PERSON] et al.