## 3 Results  
Table 6 shows the mean and standard deviation roughness parameters measured for the unfiltered (Pa) and filtered (Ra) groups. In terms of Pa, the mechanized technique demonstrated the lowest mean value at 1.49 \(\upmu\)m, followed closely by the manual technique at 1.49 \(\upmu\)m. The control technique exhibited the highest mean value at 11.11 \(\upmu\)m (Table 6). The ANOVA F-statistic of 90.139, along with the associated _p_-value of <0.001, underscores a statistically significant difference in Pa distribution among the three techniques. However, the lack of homogeneity among variances between the samples precluded the identification of significant differences in the post-hoc analysis, as revealed by the Games-Howell test. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measure**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ANOVA**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Mechanized** & **Manual** & **Control** & **F** & _p-Value_ \\ \hline Pa (\(\upmu\)m), mean \(\pm\) SD & 1.49 \(\pm\) 0.50 & 1.49 \(\pm\) 0.50 & 11.11 \(\pm\) 4.18 & 90.139 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Ra (\(\upmu\)m), mean \(\pm\) SD & 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\star}\) & 2.13 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\star}\) & 53.028 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\)significant differences between groups on post-hoc analysis; F, ANOVA F-statistic.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Dispersion measures of roughness for different polishing techniques. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Value** & **Meaning** & **Graphic Representation [10]** \\ \hline Rku \textless{} 3 & Flat amplitude distribution (gray curve) & \\ Rku \textless{} 3 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Symmetrical Gaussian distribution \\ (red curve) \\ \end{tabular} & \\ Rku \textgreater{} 3 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Sharp amplitude distribution \\ (blue curve) \\ \end{tabular} & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Amplitude of the distribution curve—Kurtosis [15]. Similarly, for Ra, the mechanized technique displayed the lowest mean value at 0.89 \(\upmu\)m, followed by the manual technique at 0.52 \(\upmu\)m, and the control technique at 2.13 \(\upmu\)m. The ANOVA F-statistic of 53.028, coupled with a \(p\)-value of \(<\)0.001, indicates a statistically significant difference in the Ra distribution among the three techniques. Post hoc analysis further corroborated noteworthy differences in Ra between all three techniques, with both the mechanized and manual techniques surpassing the control technique in performance. The coefficient of variation (CV) for Pa displayed relatively similar values across the three techniques, ranging from 0.334 for mechanized to 0.377 for control (Table 7). By contrast, the CV for Ra exhibited a distinct pattern, with the control group registering a lower value of 0.067 compared to 0.362 for mechanized and 0.323 for manual. Tables 8 and 9 show the filtered and unfiltered groups for skewness (Rsk/Psk) and kurtosis (Rku/Psk), respectively. The skewness values indicate a leftward tendency for the three categories, aligning with the text's observation of heightened skewness heterogeneity in this category. The mechanized and manual categories exhibit a larger magnitude value compared to the control. A more pronounced distribution with lower values is found in the manual category (Table 7). The kurtosis values indicate a platykurtic distribution (Pku/Rku \(<\) 3) for the control category. After the polishing procedures (mechanized and manual), the probability of occurrence of extreme values increased with a distribution tendency for leptokurtic (Pku/Pku \(>\) 3). On the other hand, a platykurtic distribution (Pku \(=\) 0.819) is found on the profile of kurtosis for manually polished samples (Table 9). Figure 4 represents the height distribution curve for the filtered and unfiltered profiles: control (A, B), mechanically polished (1A, 1B), and manually polished (2A, 2B).