## 4 Results  
Following biomechanical simulation testing, there was no physical damage discernible through visual examination or SEM analysis in the TMJ condyle and glenoid fossa parts, except for areas of wear. The wear facets were predominantly observed on the points of contact during vertical stroke and the leading surface facing translation stroke, both in the condyle and glenoid fossa specimens (Figures 9 and 10). Comparing the pre-test and post-test weights of the different TMJ parts, there was an overall reduction in the mean weights of the condyle and glenoid fossa parts under all circumstances. Nevertheless, there were no statistically significant differences observed (Tables 2 and 3). Similarly, comparison of the mean reduction in weights between condyle specimens using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc test revealed no statistically significant differences (Table 4). However, the greatest reduction in weight was observed among titanium condyle's tested against zirconia (0.00260) and titanium fossae (0.00178), followed by acrylic condyle's tested against zirconia (0.00165) and titanium fossae (0.00153). The lowest reduction in weight was observed among the zirconia condyle's (Table 2 and Figure 11). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Nature of Prosthetic**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Prosthetic Glenoid Fossa Material**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Temporomandibularbular Joint Parts** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EBM-Ti**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Zirconia**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Acrylic**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Prosthetic condyle material**} & EBM-Ti & Pair 1 & Pair 2 & Pair 3 \\  & Zirconia & Pair 5 & Pair 4 & Pair 6 \\  & Acrylic & Pair 8 & Pair 9 & Pair 7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Combinations for pairing condyle and glenoid fossa parts fabricated from different biomaterials during biomechanical simulation testing. (n = 6 per pair). Figure 9: Representative images of condylar parts after completion of biomechanical simulation testing against glenoid fossa parts of different materials, (1 st row) titanium condyle against (**a**) titanium fossa (**b**) zirconia fossa (**c**) acrylic fossa; (2 nd row) zirconia condyle against (**d**) zirconia fossa (**e**) titanium fossa (**f**) acrylic fossa; (3 rd row) acrylic condy against (**g**) acrylic fossa (**h**) titanium fossa (**i**) zirconia fossa. Similar to condylar specimens, there was an overall reduction in the mean weights of glenoid fossa specimens too. Additionally, an overall statistically significant difference was also observed based on one-way ANOVA (F-value--6.0337, \(p<0.001\)). While the greatest reduction was observed among acrylic fossae (0.00483) and titanium fossae (0.00289), both when tested against zirconia condyles, the lowest reduction was seen among zirconia fossae tested against acrylic condyles (0.00040) (Table 3 and Figure 11). Post-hoc comparison showed statistically significant reduction in the weights of acrylic fossae tested against zirconia condyles in contrast to all other groups, except titanium fossae tested against zirconia condyles (Table 5). There was also a significant difference observed between titanium fossae tested against zirconia condyles and zirconia fossae tested against acrylic condyles (Table 5). Figure 10: Representative images of glenoid fossa parts after completion of biomechanical simulation testing against condylar parts of different materials, (1 st row) titanium fossa against (**a**) titanium condyle (**b**) zirconia condyle (**c**) acrylic condyle; (2 nd row) zirconia fossa against (**d**) zirconia condyle (**e**) titanium condyle (**f**) acrylic condyle; (3 rd row) acrylic fossa against (**g**) acrylic condyle (**h**) titanium condyle (**i**) zirconia condyle. Pre-test qualitative SEM analysis revealed uniform distribution of surface characteristics, depending upon the grain structure, in the condylar and glenoid fossa specimens fabricated from different materials (Figure 12).