## 3 Results  
The material composition, filler size, and filler content of the studied materials are represented in Table 1. Mohs hardness from each type of polishing powder is shown in Table 2.  
Roughness values (Ra) obtained for the two materials under study, following the various treatments, are presented in Table 3. The comparison of the mean roughness \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Material** & **Type** & **Composition** & **Filler Size (\(\mu\)m)** & **Filler Content (\%)** \\ \hline
3M Filek(tm) Supreme XTE & Composite resin & Silica, zirconia & 0.01–3.0 & 63–72\% (volume) \\ \hline Fuji(tm) IX & Glass ionomer cement & Aluminosilicate glass & 4–10 & Around 50\% (weight) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Restorative material composition. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Polishing Powder** & **Mohs Hardness** \\ \hline Sodium bicarbonate & 2.5 \\ \hline Erythritol & 2 \\ \hline Glycine & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Polishing powder Mohs hardness values. (Ra_mean) between the composite resin and the Fuji(tm) IX glass ionomer cement is illustrated in Figure 1. The figure demonstrates that the composite resin exhibits a lower mean roughness and less variability (as indicated by a narrower interquartile range) compared with Fuji(tm) IX. On the other hand, Fuji(tm) IX shows greater variability in roughness, suggesting that this material is more susceptible to variations in testing conditions. These results imply that the composite resin tends to produce more uniform and predictable surfaces, while Fuji(tm) IX may generate rougher and less consistent surfaces. Figure 2 compares the mean roughness (Ra_mean) across the different powders--sodium bicarbonate, erythroid, and glycine. It is observed that sodium bicarbonate produces higher mean roughness compared with the other abrasives, with moderate variability. Erythritol causes intermediate roughness with less variability, although an outlier indicates an observation that deviates from the general pattern. Glycine, on the other hand, results in the lowest mean roughness but shows the greatest variability among the three abrasives, suggesting that its effect on the surface is more unpredictable, potentially generating both smooth and rougher surfaces. These results indicate that the choice of abrasive can significantly impact the final surface roughness, with sodium bicarbonate producing rougher surfaces and glycine showing a broader range of outcomes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material** & **Powder** & **Time** & **Ra\_1** & **Ra\_2** & **Ra\_3** & **Ra\_4** & **mean** & **std** \\ \hline Filtek(tm) & 2350 XT & Bicarbonate & 5 s & 0.23 & 1.12 & 0.87 & 0.40 & 0.66 & 0.41 \\ Filtek(tm) & 2350 XT & Erythritol & 5 s & 0.61 & 0.66 & 0.59 & 0.65 & 0.63 & 0.03 \\ Filtek(tm) & 2350 XT & Glycine & 5 s & 0.55 & 0.43 & 0.45 & 0.44 & 0.47 & 0.05 \\ Fuji(tm) IX & Bicarbonate & 5 s & 0.37 & 0.66 & 0.97 & 0.78 & 0.70 & 0.25 \\ Fuji(tm) IX & Erythritol & 5 s & 0.38 & 0.58 & 0.48 & 0.36 & 0.45 & 0.10 \\ Fuji(tm) IX & Glycine & 5 s & 0.17 & 0.19 & 0.27 & 0.16 & 0.20 & 0.05 \\ Fuji(tm) IX & Erythritol & 10 s & 0.36 & 0.48 & 0.35 & 0.62 & 0.45 & 0.13 \\ Filtek(tm) & 2350 XT & Erythritol & 10 s & 0.26 & 0.50 & 0.44 & 0.54 & 0.44 & 0.12 \\ Filtek(tm) & 2350 XT & Bicarbonate & 10 s & 0.15 & 0.41 & 0.12 & 0.11 & 0.20 & 0.14 \\ Fuji(tm) IX & Glycine & 10 s & 0.98 & 0.48 & 2.15 & 0.26 & 0.97 & 0.84 \\ Filtek(tm) & 2350 XT & Glycine & 10 s & 0.10 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.13 & 0.16 & 0.05 \\ Fuji(tm) IX & Bicarbonate & 10 s & 0.36 & 0.77 & 0.50 & 0.63 & 0.57 & 0.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Materials roughness values following different treatments. Figure 1: Boxplot of roughness by compound.