# Effect of Different pH Beverages on the Color Stability of Smart Monochromatic Composite
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dependent Variable** & **Shades** & **Shades** & **Mean Difference** & **Std. Error** & **Sig.** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{OM Pepsi} & A1 & A2 & 1.00000 & 1.23956 & 0.432 \\  & A1 & B2 & 0.58000 & 1.23956 & 0.646 \\  & & B3 & 2.68000 * & 1.23956 & 0.046 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & A1 & \(-\)1.00000 & 1.23956 & 0.432 \\  & A2 & B2 & \(-\)0.42000 & 1.23956 & 0.739 \\  & & B3 & 1.68000 & 1.23956 & 0.194 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & A1 & \(-\)0.58000 & 1.23956 & 0.646 \\  & B2 & A2 & 0.42000 & 1.23956 & 0.739 \\  & & B3 & 2.10000 & 1.23956 & 0.110 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & A1 & \(-\)2.68000 * & 1.23956 & 0.046 \\  & B3 & A2 & \(-\)1.68000 & 1.23956 & 0.194 \\  & & B2 & \(-\)2.10000 & 1.23956 & 0.110 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{FT Pepsi} & A1 & A2 & 0.36000 & 1.48829 & 0.812 \\  & A1 & B2 & 1.22000 & 1.48829 & 0.424 \\  & & B3 & 1.38000 & 1.48829 & 0.368 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & A2 & \(-\)1.02000 & 1.48829 & 0.571 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & A1 & \(-\)1.38000 & 1.48829 & 0.368 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & A2 & \(-\)1.02000 & 1.48829 & 0.503 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & B2 & \(-\)0.16000 & 1.48829 & 0.916 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Post-Hoc Analysis. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dependent Variable** & **Shades** & **Shades** & **Mean Difference** & **Std. Error** & **Sig.** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{OM Coffee} & A1 & A2 & \(-\)0.60000 & 1.41958 & 0.678 \\  & A1 & B2 & \(-\)0.20000 & 1.41958 & 0.890 \\  & B3 & \(-\)1.20000 & 1.41958 & 0.410 \\ \cline{2-6}  & A2 & A1 & 0.60000 & 1.41958 & 0.678 \\  & A2 & B2 & 0.40000 & 1.41958 & 0.782 \\  & B3 & \(-\)0.60000 & 1.41958 & 0.678 \\ \cline{2-6}  & B2 & A1 & 0.20000 & 1.41958 & 0.890 \\  & B2 & A2 & \(-\)0.40000 & 1.41958 & 0.782 \\  & B3 & \(-\)1.00000 & 1.41958 & 0.491 \\ \cline{2-6}  & B3 & A1 & 1.20000 & 1.41958 & 0.410 \\  & B3 & A2 & 0.60000 & 1.41958 & 0.678 \\  & B2 & 1.00000 & 1.41958 & 0.491 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{FT Coffee} & A1 & A2 & \(-\)0.44000 & 1.89937 & 0.820 \\  & A2 & B2 & \(-\)0.34000 & 1.89937 & 0.959 \\  & B2 & A2 & \(-\)0.34000 & 1.89937 & 0.523 \\  & B3 & \(-\)1.24000 & 1.89937 & 0.491 \\ \cline{2-6}  & B3 & A1 & 0.44000 & 1.89937 & 0.491 \\  & B3 & \(-\)0.90000 & 1.89937 & 0.642 \\ \cline{2-6}  & B2 & A1 & 0.10000 & 1.89937 & 0.959 \\  & B2 & A2 & \(-\)0.34000 & 1.89937 & 0.860 \\  & B3 & \(-\)1.24000 & 1.89937 & 0.523 \\ \cline{2-6}  & B3 & A1 & 1.34000 & 1.89937 & 0.491 \\  & B3 & A2 & 0.90000 & 1.89937 & 0.642 \\  & B2 & 1.24000 & 1.89937 & 0.523 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{OM Milk Tea} & A1 & A2 & 0.26000 & 0.64195 & 0.691 \\  & A1 & B2 & \(-\)0.52000 & 0.64195 & 0.430 \\  & A2 & B3 & \(-\)1.34000 & 0.64195 & 0.053 \\ \cline{2-6}  & A2 & A1 & \(-\)0.26000 & 0.64195 & 0.691 \\  & B3 & \(-\)0.78000 & 0.64195 & 0.242 \\ \cline{2-6}  & B3 & A1 & 0.52000 & 0.64195 & 0.430 \\  & B2 & A2 & 0.78000 & 0.64195 & 0.220 \\ \cline{2-6}  & B3 & A1 & 1.34000 & 0.64195 & 0.053 \\  & B3 & A2 & 1.60000 * & 0.64195 & 0.024 \\  & B2 & 0.82000 & 0.64195 & 0.220 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{FT Milk Tea} & A1 & A2 & 0.12000 & 1.21227 & 0.922 \\  & A2 & B2 & \(-\)0.60000 & 1.21227 & 0.627 \\  & A2 & B2 & \(-\)0.72000 & 1.21227 & 0.048 \\ \cline{1-1}  & A2 & B2 & \(-\)0.72000 & 1.21227 & 0.561 \\ \cline{1-1}  & A2 & B2 & \(-\)0.72000 & 1.21227 & 0.561 \\ \cline{1-1}  & B2 & A2 & 0.72000 & 1.21227 & 0.561 \\ \cline{1-1}  & B3 & 3.20000 * & 1.21227 & 0.018 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & A1 & \(-\)2.60000 * & 1.21227 & 0.048 \\ \cline{1-1}  & B3 & A2 & \(-\)2.48000 & 1.21227 & 0.058 \\ \cline{1-1}  & B2 & \(-\)3.20000 * & 1.21227 & 0.018 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._  
with [PERSON] et al. [16], who reported that Filtek Z250 showed more stain resistance than Omnichroma after immersion in the Cola beverage.