## 3 Results  
The present study was conducted on a total of eighty 3D-printed working models of a maxillary right central incisor with two different tapers. Forty CAD/CAM-milled provisional crowns and forty 3D-printed crowns were fabricated on working models.  
Eight study groups were considered with 10 samples in each group (Table 2).  
There was a significant difference between groups 1 and 8. The retentive force was highest for group 8, i.e., 3D-printed crowns with a 20\({}^{\circ}\) taper and cemented with Kerr Temp-Bond clear cement, followed by groups 6, 7, 4, 5, 3, and 2. Group 1, i.e., milled crowns with 10\({}^{\circ}\) taper and cemented with Kerr Temp-Bond NE conventional cement, exhibited the lowest retentive force.  
There was a significant difference in the retention of crowns fabricated using 3D printing and milling. The retentive values were statistically higher for samples cemented with clear cement than those cemented with non-eugenol cement.  
Multiple comparisons between the groups revealed that the 3D-printed temporary crowns cemented with clear cement possessed statistically significant values of retention, as determined by the pull-off test (Table 3).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Group 1** & **Group 2** & **Group 3** & **Group 4** & **Group 5** & **Group 6** & **Group 7** & **Group 8** \\ \hline \(n\)—number of samples per group & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 \\ Maximum (N) & 52.34 & 48.35 & 65.25 & 80.10 & 53.88 & 188.02 & 80.24 & 205.65 \\ Mean (N) & 43.01 & 43.48 & 49.24 & 60.76 & 49.15 & 158.37 & 65.48 & 178.74 \\ Median (N) & 41.27 & 45.46 & 48.94 & 56.79 & 50.56 & 153.23 & 62.69 & 180.44 \\ Minimum(N) & 36.38 & 32.14 & 37.98 & 47.31 & 39.28 & 127.50 & 55.31 & 154.95 \\ Standard deviation & 4.93 & 5.20 & 8.04 & 10.77 & 4.64 & 26.19 & 7.16 & 17.09 \\ (N) & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Group-specific pull-off force values (in Newtons) compared between groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 using one-way ANOVA. The maximum, mean, median, minimum, and standard deviations are shown for the pull-off forces in groups 1–8.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** \\ \cline{2-9}  & **MD/\(p\)-Value** & **MD/\(p\)-Value** & **MD/\(p\)-Value** & **MD/\(p\)-Value** & **MD/\(p\)-Value** & **MD/\(p\)-Value** & **MD/\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline \(1\) & X & \(-0.56/0.921\) & \(-6.23/0.274\) & \(17.75/0.002\) * & \(-6.46/0.257\) & \(115.36/0.000\) & \(115.36/0.000\) & \(-135.73\) \\  & & & & & & \(+\) & \(*\) & \(*\)/0.000 * \\ \(2\) & \(-0.56/0.921\) & X & \(-5.67/0.319\) & \(*/0.003\) * & \(-5.90/0.301\) & \(-114.80\) & \(-21.91/0.000\) & \(135.17\) \\ \(3\) & \(-6.23/0.274\) & \(-5.67/0.319\) & X & \(-11.52/0.045\) & \(-0.23/0.968\) & \(*/0.005\) * & \(*/0.000\) * \\ \(4\) & \(17.75/0.002\) * & \(-17.19\) & \(-11.52/0.045\) & X & \(11.30*/0.050\) & \(-109.13/0.000\) & \(-16.24\) & \(-129.50\) \\ \(5\) & \(-6.46/0.257\) & \(-5.90/0.301\) & \(-0.23/0.968\) & \(*/0.005\) & \(-108.91\) & \(-16.01\) & \(-129.27\) \\ \(-115.36/0.000\) & \(-114.80\) & \(-109.13/0.000\) & \(-97.61\) & \(-108.91\) & \(92.90*/0.000\) & \(-20.36\) \\ \(6\) & \(*\) & \(*/0.000\) * & \(*/0.000\) * & \(*/0.000\) * & \(*/0.000\) * & \(*/0.001\) * & \(*/0.001\) * \\ \(7\) & \(-22.47\) & \(-21.91/0.000\) & \(-16.24\) & \(-4.72/0.407\) & \(-16.01\) & \(92.90*/0.000\) & X & \(-113.26\) \\ \(*/0.000\) * & \(*\) & \(*/0.005\) * & \(*/0.006\) * & \(*/0.006\) * & \(*/0.000\) * & \(*/0.000\) * \\ \(8\) & \(-135.73\) & \(135.17\) & \(-129.50\) & \(-117.98\) & \(-129.27\) & \(-20.36\) & \(-113.26\) \\ \(*/0.000\) * & \(*/0.000\) * & \(*/0.000\) * & \(*/0.000\) * & \(*/0.001\) * & \(*/0.000\) * \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Intergroup comparison of pull-off force in newton s(N) for groups 1–8 using one-way ANOVA test.