## 3 Results
### Marginal Misfit  
Means and standard deviation of marginal misfit of CoCr specimens are presented in Table 2. Samples fabricated from the DLP-Cast technique demonstrated the highest mean marginal misfit (147.746 \(\pm\) 30.306 \(\upmu\)m), whereas the lowest marginal misfit was established by SLM-fabricated specimens (27.193 \(\pm\) 8.519 \(\upmu\)m). Moreover, ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in mean marginal misfit among all investigated groups (\(p\) < 0.05). Individual intergroup comparison using Tukey Kramer post hoc test revealed that copings fabricated from the SLM technique displayed lower marginal misfit than DLP-Cast (\(p\) = 0.001) and CAD-CAM (88.943 \(\pm\) 20.880 \(\upmu\)m) (\(p\) = 0.001). However SLM copings showed higher but comparable misfits to Cast-LWT (47.861 \(\pm\) 19.693 \(\upmu\)m) samples (\(p\) > 0.05). The microCT images of the assessed samples are presented in Figure 3.  
Figures 4-7 present the correlation between Ra and marginal misfit in CAD-CAM, Cast-LWT, SLM, and DLP-Cast study samples respectively. It was observed that Ra influences the marginal misfit in CAD-CAM (81.7%), SLM (94.8%), and DLP Cast (98.6%) technique-fabricated copings. (\(p\) < 0.01). Whereas, copings which are fabricated from CAST-LWT technique did not display any significant effect of Ra on the marginal misfit on the specimens of this group (\(p\) = 0.435), as displayed in the correlation plot (Figure 5).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Study** \\ **Group** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **(\(\upmu\)m)** \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **ANOVA** \\ **\(p\) Value** \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cast/LWT**} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **CAD-** \\ **CAM** \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SLM**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**DLP-Cast**} \\ \hline Cast/LWT & 47.861 & 19.693 & & & 1.000 & & \\ \hline CAD-CAM & 88.943 & 20.880 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.001 \({}^{\lx@sectionsign}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.031 \({}^{\star}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.000} & & \\ \cline{1-1} SLM & 27.193 & 8.519 & & & 0.074 & 0.001 \({}^{\star}\) & 1.000 & \\ \hline DLP-Cast & 147.746 & 30.306 & & 0.013 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.001 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.001 \({}^{\star}\) & 1.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\) Statistical significant difference among groups shown in corresponding rows and columns using [PERSON] post hoc test, \({}^{\lx@sectionsign}\) Statistically significant difference using ANOVA.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison of marginal misfit of the CoCr copings.  
Figure 3: MicroCT images of the assessed samples in groups (**A**) Cast/LWT, (**B**) CAD-CAM, (**C**) DLP-Cast, and (**D**) SLM.  
Figure 4: Showing a positive correlation between surface micro roughness and marginal misfit in CAD-CAM samples. R\({}^{2}\) showed 81.7% variation in marginal misfit explained by surface micro roughness; \(p\)-value was less than 0.01, and therefore statistically significant.  
Figure 5: Showing a positive correlation between surface micro roughness and marginal misfit in CAST-LWT samples. R\({}^{2}\) showed 7.8% variation in marginal misfit explained by surface micro roughness; \(p\)-value 0.435, and therefore statistically insignificant.