## 4 Discussion  
This study evaluated the vertical marginal discrepancy of 3-unit Co-Cr posterior FPDs frameworks with intermediate and cantilever pontic and four different manufacturing techniques. The results of the study showed that all tested groups were able to obtain restorations with an adequate marginal fit within the clinically accepted limits of 120 \(\upmu\)m [28; 29; 33; 34; 43; 44], and support the acceptance of the null hypotheses because no significant differences were found among the manufacturing techniques and between the design of the frameworks. Up to date, there is no consensus on which metallic framework exhibits the best marginal fit. In the study, the CM group on conventional frameworks with intermediate pontic obtained misfit values similar to other studies [18; 39] and lower than other ones [17; 20; 45; 46]. The lower values obtained in the study may be due to the fact that the wax patterns of the frameworks were not made with the conventional manual technique, but they were obtained with the 3D-printing technique, in agreement with the study of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group 1** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** \\ \hline CM & 40.11 & 10.43 & 26.90 & 53.90 \\ LS & 41.84 & 10.36 & 27.16 & 57.20 \\ SM & 39.78 & 8.77 & 24.24 & 53.10 \\ HM & 38.67 & 18.27 & 22.83 & 80.01 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum and maximum (\(\upmu\)m) marginal discrepancies values of in frameworks with intermediate pontic. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group 2** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** \\ \hline CMc & 34.55 & 6.93 & 26.94 & 50.71 \\ LSc & 35.22 & 10.60 & 26.17 & 62.42 \\ SMc & 40.81 & 5.55 & 32.18 & 49.21 \\ HMc & 34.17 & 15.85 & 19.63 & 71.69 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum and maximum (\(\upmu\)m) marginal discrepancies values in frameworks with cantilever pontic. [PERSON] et al. [47] which obtained better fit in cast crowns with wax patterns fabricated by additive CAD/CAM technique. In the last years, several studies have been published about the marginal fit of restorations made with additive technology. In the study, no differences were shown between CM and LS frameworks. While some authors [48; 49; 50; 51] have found better fit values in cast structures compared to sintered ones. Conversely, other authors [15; 17; 18; 45; 52; 53] obtained better fit values in selective laser sintering structures. Therefore, there is no consensus regarding the influence of the LS technique on the marginal fit of the restorations. The HM group obtained the lowest misfit values, although there were no differences with the other groups. [PERSON] et al. [54], in Ni-Cr frameworks, and [PERSON] et al. [55] obtained the same conclusion in their studies comparing cast, sintered and milled crowns. [PERSON] et al. [16] also reported that the milled structures presented a better fit. However, other authors [56; 57] reported a better adaptation of the sintered structures. There are only a few studies that compared the four available techniques for manufacturing metal frameworks, and the differences among studies continue. Recent studies [13; 58; 59; 60] concluded that milled soft metal structures obtain lower misfit values than the other technologies, while other studies [61] continue to advocate for sintered structures. In the study, no differences could be demonstrated among the four manufacturing techniques. Therefore, it remains unclear nowadays which manufacturing technique offers more advantages regarding the marginal adaptation of the metallic restorations. In certain situations, the disposition of the abutments may not be ideal for FPDs design, and it is necessary to select cantilevered structures as a treatment option [62]. In the present study, the HMc frameworks also obtained the lowest misfit values, although; no differences were demonstrated with the other cantilevered groups.