## 3 Results
### Correlation Assessment  
Figure 8 for Group CC shows a positive correlation between surface roughness and adaptation, with a 1.8% variation in adaptation. However, it was statistically insignificant, with a \(p\)-value of 0.713.  
Figure 9 for Group 3D shows a positive correlation between surface roughness and adaptation, with a 22.4% variation in adaptation. However, it was statistically insignificant, with a \(p\)-value of 0.167.  
Figure 10 for Group CN shows a negative correlation between surface roughness and adaptation, with a 3.2% variation in adaptation. However, it was statistically insignificant, with a \(p\)-value of 0.622.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Study Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Difference** \\ **(mm\({}^{3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **SD** \\ **(mm\({}^{3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Lower Bound** \\ **(mm\({}^{3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Upper Bound** \\ **(mm\({}^{3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**ANOVA**} \\ \hline CC-1 & 3D-1 & 2.82797 \({}^{*}\) & 0.99069 & 0.3716 & 5.2843 & \\  & CN-1 & \(-\)4.15323 \({}^{*}\) & 0.99069 & \(-\)6.6096 & \(-\)1.6969 & \\ \hline
3D-1 & \begin{tabular}{c} CC-1 \\ CN-1 \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(-\)2.82797 \({}^{*}\) \\ CN-1 \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} 0.99069 \\ \(-\)6.98120 \({}^{*}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(-\)5.2843 \\ 0.99069 \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(-\)0.3716 \\ \(-\)9.4375 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.01 \\ \hline CN-1 & \begin{tabular}{c} CC-1 \\ 3D-1 \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} 4.15323 \({}^{*}\) \\ 6.98120 \({}^{*}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} 0.99069 \\ 0.99069 \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 1.6969 \\ 4.5249 \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 6.6096 \\ 9.4375 \\ \end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Denotes significant difference, with \(p<0.05\), compared to the corresponding group in column 1 ([PERSON]’s post hoc test). CC: CAD-CAM, CN: conventional, 3D. 3D printing.  
\end{table}
Table 6: Comparison of surface wear /loss (mm\({}^{3}\)) between the study groups.  
Figure 8: Scatter plot for the correlation between adaptation and surface roughness for the CC samples.  
Figure 11 for Group CC shows a positive correlation between surface roughness and marginal misfit, with a 14.2% variation in misfit. However, it was statistically insignificant, with a \(p\)-value of 0.282.  
Figure 10: Scatter plot for the correlation between adaptation and surface roughness for the CN samples.  
Figure 9: Scatter plot for the correlation between adaptation and surface roughness for the 3D samples.  
Figure 12 for Group 3D shows a positive correlation between surface roughness and marginal misfit, with an 8.4% variation in misfit. However, it was statistically insignificant, with a \(p\)-value of 0.416.  
Figure 11: Scatter plot for the correlation between marginal misfit and surface roughness for the CC samples.  
Figure 12: Scatter plot for the correlation between marginal misfit and surface roughness for the 3D samples.  
Figure 13 for Group CN shows a positive correlation between surface roughness and marginal misfit, with a 0.5% variation in misfit. However, it was statistically insignificant, with a \(p\)-value of 0.831.