## 3 Results  
Mean gap values were calculated for each point, for each group, before and after ceramic firing. The mean values for discrepancies for both internal and marginal levels are listed in Table 1. The analysis of variance with Games-Howell post-hoc adjustment showed that the cast T group had significantly higher values, as compared to other procedures, in all point measurements, \(p>0.001\). The significance of differences between methods is shown in Figure 7.  
In Table 2 are included the mean differences between initial and final measurement, for all procedures and all points. Paired differences using \(t\)-test showed statistical significance only in the SLM group for the axial wall gap, axio-oclusal angle, occlusal gap and for T group in axial wall gap. All other comparisons were not statistically significant (\(p>0.05\)). Differences between initial and final measurements per each point between types of procedures were analyzed using analysis of variance with Games-Howell post hoc. Significant differences were found only in the occlusal gap between SLM and F procedures, \(p=0.001\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurement Point**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Time Point**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Procedure**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Value** **\({}^{**}\)**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-7}  & & **SLS \({}^{*}\)** & & **SLM \({}^{*}\)** & & **F \({}^{*}\)** & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Marginal gap} & initial & \(62.0\pm 11.27\) & \(55.3\pm 12.75\) & \(46.9\pm 6.20\) & \(96.4\pm 17.34\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{2-7}  & final & \(63.0\pm 12.64\) & \(53.8\pm 8.91\) & \(47.2\pm 9.36\) & \(93.8\pm 19.71\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Cervical gap} & initial & \(61.3\pm 9.64\) & \(57.0\pm 11.12\) & \(45.8\pm 7.97\) & \(86.6\pm 12.67\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{2-7}  & final & \(60.9\pm 11.44\) & \(59.3\pm 8.40\) & \(47.6\pm 7.13\) & \(85.2\pm 17.76\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Axial wall gap} & initial & \(57.5\pm 11.90\) & \(55.3\pm 9.83\) & \(42.5\pm 7.92\) & \(79.0\pm 13.36\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{2-7}  & final & \(64.4\pm 14.58\) & \(60.7\pm 9.11\) & \(45.5\pm 9.84\) & \(91.5\pm 14.64\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Axio-oclusal angle} & initial & \(66.2\pm 12.64\) & \(67.0\pm 9.83\) & \(50.2\pm 8.10\) & \(96.6\pm 17.98\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{2-7}  & final & \(61.0\pm 16.15\) & \(57.6\pm 8.53\) & \(53.9\pm 13.01\) & \(98.4\pm 20.53\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Occlusal gap} & initial & \(72.4\pm 21.75\) & \(69.3\pm 16.01\) & \(58.0\pm 10.24\) & \(111.1\pm 23.69\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{2-7}  & final & \(62.7\pm 27.53\) & \(53.8\pm 12.50\) & \(64.8\pm 14.09\) & \(110.9\pm 25.62\) & \(<\)0.001 \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{7}{l}{\({}^{*}\) Data represent mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. ** Analysis of variance, with post hoc tests using Games–Howell.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mean values for measured points for each procedure. The results of this research are presented in Figure 7.  
All parts were produced according to computer-aided design, and patterns for casting were printed to eliminate human errors, using a standardized, uniform thickness design. The present study concludes and sustains that modern additive technologies are faster, more reliable and cheaper as compared to the traditional fabrication of wax-patterns. The process has fewer errors, and the deformation risk is low [1,2]. Figure 7: Obtained results: initial and final measurements (**a**) mean marginal gap; (**b**) mean cervical gap; (**c**) mean axial wall gap; (**d**) mean axio-oclusal angle; (**e**) mean occlusal gap.