# Air-Polishing Powders' Effect on the Color of CAD/CAM Restorative Materials
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\({}^{\mathbf{1}}\)**Sodium**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\({}^{\mathbf{2}}\)**Aluminum**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\({}^{\mathbf{3}}\)**Calcium**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\({}^{\mathbf{4}}\)**Glycine**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\({}^{\mathbf{5}}\)**Eryhritol**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\({}^{\mathbf{b}}\)**\(p\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\({}^{\mathbf{c}}\)**Post Hoc**} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Bicarbonate**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Trihydroxide**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Carbonate**} & & & & \\ \hline \hline \({}^{\mathbf{A}}\) **VM** & \(0.34\pm 0.15\) & \(0.59\pm 0.33\) & \(0.41\pm 0.15\) & \(0.24\pm 0.10\) & \(0.32\pm 0.08\) & \(0.002\)\({}^{\star\star}\) & \(1,\,2,3<5\) \\ \({}^{\mathbf{B}}\) **MZ** & \(0.26\pm 0.11\) & \(0.57\pm 0.17\) & \(0.60\pm 0.12\) & \(0.37\pm 0.18\) & \(0.27\pm 0.09\) & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{\star\star}\) & \(1,\,2,3<4,5\) \\ \({}^{\mathbf{C}}\) **LU** & \(0.14\pm 0.12\) & \(0.22\pm 0.16\) & \(0.52\pm 0.29\) & \(0.19\pm 0.12\) & \(0.18\pm 0.25\) & \(0.001\)\({}^{\star\star\star}\) & \(1,\,2,3,5<4\) \\ \({}^{\mathbf{D}}\) **CS** & \(0.27\pm 0.14\) & \(0.58\pm 0.22\) & \(0.59\pm 0.21\) & \(0.20\pm 0.09\) & \(0.28\pm 0.11\) & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{\star\star\star}\) & \(1,\,2,3<4,5\) \\ \({}^{\mathbf{E}}\) **VE** & \(-0.13\pm 0.11\) & \(0.31\pm 0.25\) & \(0.34\pm 0.55\) & \(0.04\pm 0.08\) & \(0.00\)\({}^{\star\star\star}\) & \(2<4,5\) \\ \hline \hline \({}^{\mathbf{b}}\) \(p\) & \(0.001\)\({}^{\star\star\star}\) & \(0.001\)\({}^{\star\star}\) & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{\star\star}\) & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{\star\star\star}\) & \(0.066\) & & \\ \({}^{\mathbf{c}}\) **Post Hoc** & \(\mathrm{E}<\) A, B, C, D & \(\mathrm{C}<\) A, B, D & - & \(\mathrm{E}<\) A, B, C, D & \(\mathrm{E}<\) A, B, D & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\mathbf{b}}\) One-way ANOVA, \({}^{\star}\) Tukey HSD, \({}^{\star\star}\)\(p\)\(<\) 0.01. Different superscript upper-case letters imply the CAD/CAM block they refer, and different superscript numbers imply the air-poishing powder they refer. Abbreviations: VM, Vita Mark II; MZ, Paradigm MZ 100; LU, Lava Ultimate; CS, Cerasmart; VE, Vita Enamic.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation values of the \(\Delta\)H\({}^When comparing the effect of the APPs on the \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) values of the CAD/CAM blocks, as presented in Table 9, in the sodium bicarbonate, aluminum trihydroxide, calcium carbonate, or glycine-treated groups, there were significant differences in terms of the \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) values according to the type of CAD/CAM restorative material (\(p\): 0.005; \(p\): 0.003; \(p\): 0.005; and \(p\): 0.002), respectively, whereas in the erythroid group, there was no significant difference (\(p\) > 0.05). According to the pairwise comparisons, it was found that among the sodium bicarbonate-treated groups, the \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) values of the MZ samples were significantly higher than LU (\(p\): 0.005) and VE (\(p\): 0.027); among the aluminum trihydroxide-treated groups, the \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) values of MZ were significantly higher than the LU (\(p\): 0.026) and VE (\(p\): 0.006) CAD/CAM blocks. Among the calcium carbonate-treated groups, the \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) values of the VM samples were significantly lower than CS (\(p\): 0.017) and MZ (\(p\): 0.007); among the glycine-treated groups, the \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) values of MZ samples were significantly higher than the VM (\(p\): 0.005), LU (\(p\): 0.007), CS (\(p\): 0.013) and VE (\(p\): 0.008) samples. Figure 2 presents the SEM micrographs showing different microscopic morphologies and particle sizes of the APPs tested. As seen in Figure 2, with 100\(\times\) and 200\(\times\) magnifications, the particles of sodium bicarbonate and glycine are not evenly distributed; their sizes are in a wide range, with a large variety of fragment forms with sharp edges and corners.