## 3 Results  
Table 2 summarizes descriptive statistics of tested parameters for each material. Significant differences were observed among the tested materials when external surface deviations (df = 3, F = 6.941, and \(p\) = 0.001), mesiodistal width deviations (df = 3, F = 15.7, and \(p\) < 0.001), and volume loss at wear area (df = 3, F = 9.616, and \(p\) < 0.001) were considered.  
MS and BC had higher external surface deviations than PMMA (\(p\) = 0.001 for MS and \(p\) = 0.016 for BC). In addition, MS had higher deviations than GR (\(p\) = 0.038), and the difference in external surface deviations between other materials was nonsignificant (\(p\) \(\geq\) 0.308). The color map of GR was predominantly yellow, which indicates a slightly overcontoured occlusal surface, a mesibuccal groove that lies between the mesibuccal and distobuccal cusps, and the area below the occlusal third of the crown. In addition, orange and red areas indicate overcontoured (moderate to high) lingual inclinations of the mesiolingual cusp. The color map of BC had yellow on the buccal inclination of the buccal cusp and on the lingual inclination of the mesiolingual cusp. PMMA also had yellow-colored areas at the buccal inclination of the distobuccal cusp. The overconturing of varying magnitudes was evident at the margins, regardless of the material. MS had higher  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **External Surface** & **Mesiodistal Width Deviation** & **Volume Loss** \\  & **Deviation** & **(\(\mu\)m)** & **(\(\mu\)m\({}^{3}\))** \\ \hline MS & 149.2 \(\pm\) 52.0 \({}^{\circ}\) & 23.3 \(\pm\) 11.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ \hline GR & 105.0 \(\pm\) 34.0 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 15.6 \(\pm\) 10.3 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) \\ \hline PMMA & 82.9 \(\pm\) 24.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 9.0 \(\pm\) 4.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline BC & 132.3 \(\pm\) 31.1 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 8.7 \(\pm\) 7.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Descriptive statistics (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation) of external surface deviations, mesiodistal width deviations, and volume loss at wear area for each material.  
Figure 4: Volume loss measurement. (**A**) Encapsulation of worn area after superimposition of before and after thermomechanical aging data; (**B**) Manual selection of worn area before thermomechanical aging data; (**C**) Manual selection of worn area after thermomechanical aging data; (**D**) Automatic volumetric calculation of worn area on both data.  
mesiodistal width deviations than PMMA and BC (\(p\) = 0.004). However, the deviations in mesiodistal width did not significantly differ when other material comparisons were made (\(p\geq 0.218\)). MS had a distinct external surface color map with evident light blue and blue colors that covered a large area at the occlusal and interproximal surfaces (Figure 5).  
Figure 6 shows the distribution of raw mesiodistal width deviation among test groups. BC had higher volume loss in the worn area than MS and PMMA (\(p\leq 0.047\)), while GR had higher volume loss in the worn area than PMMA (\(p\) = 0.002). The differences in occlusal surface wear of remaining material comparisons were nonsignificant (\(p\geq 0.104\)).  
Figure 5: Color maps generated after superimpositions. Overcontoured areas are indicated in red color, and undercontoured areas are indicated in blue color. Acceptable areas are indicated in green color. MS, Crowntec; GR, G-CAM; PMMA, breCAM.monoCOM; BC, Brilliant Crios.  
Figure 6: Distribution of raw mesiodistal width deviation (\(\mu\)m) data.