## 3 Results and Discussion
Therefore, since the SLM specimens were prepared in a horizontal direction, the tension load was applied perpendicular to the building direction (Figure 1) [18]. The LWC alloy showed a statistically higher yield strength value than the other two alloys (\(p<0.001\)), which were statistically similar in value (\(p=0.509\)), mainly due to its relatively pore-free microstructure (Figures 2a and 3a). In addition, the Mo precipitate, which is seen in the EDS maps for the LWC alloy (Figure 5a), provides a high dislocation density [25], which may have enhanced the yield and tensile strength values for the LWC alloy [26]. While the SLM and SMM alloys showed homogeneous and fine grains (Figure 6), it would seem that the formation of a high number of pores (Figures 2 and 3) decreased the properties of the alloys [27]. The percentage elongations in the SMM specimens were significantly greater than those in both the SLM and LWC specimens (\(p<0.001\)), due to the greater precipitation of intragrain carbide and porous structures within the grains. All three alloys satisfied the ISO 22674 criteria for type 5 materials used in appliances, where the parts require a combination of high stiffness and proof stress (0.2% offset yield strength: \(>\)500 MPa; percentage elongation: \(>\)2%; and elastic modulus: \(>\)150 GPa) [16]. The main limitation of this study was that, to compare the different fabrication methods, a single Ni-Cr-Mo alloy, normally used to produce SLM alloys, was also used for the  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & **Tensile Strength** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**0.2\% Offset**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Elongation (\%)**} & **Elastic Modulus** \\  & **(MPa)** & & & **(MPa)** \\ \hline LWC & 862 \(\pm\) 49 1  & 753 \(\pm\) 44 2  & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.9 2 [FOOTNOTE:2]Footnote 2: 2:  
+++ ==WARNING: Truncated because of repetitions==
production of the LVC and SMM alloys (Figure 1). Nonetheless, the LVC and SMM alloys both showed favorable microstructures and mechanical properties. Despite the existence of numerous pores within the microstructure of the SLM alloy (Figure 3b), it still met the criteria for type 5 materials. Its ultrafine grain structure, due to its rapid solidification at a very high cooling rate [28], is known to produce desirable mechanical properties (in particular, yield strength and ductility) based on the Hall-Petch relationship [29], which explains that the mechanical properties of polycrystalline metals generally increase with a decrease in the average grain size. Furthermore, controlling the processing conditions of the SLM and SMM processes can significantly affect the mechanical properties of the resultant alloys [30]. In particular, the mechanical properties of SLM alloys can be notably altered according to the building direction [31]. In the current study, the dumbbell-shaped SLM specimens were prepared only in a horizontal direction (Figure 1) before testing (i.e., tension load perpendicular to the building direction). The SLM and SMM alloys (in particular, SLM) showed more porosity than the LVC alloy (Figures 2 and 3). Notably, such pore formation can increase corrosion susceptibility, such as crevice and pitting corrosion [22]. However, the corrosion resistance and biocompatibility of the three resultant alloys were not investigated in the present study. Thus, caution is needed when generalizing the results of this study. When compared to conventional casting, digital technologies such as SLM and SMM offer several advantages, including the cost-effective production of dental restorations, reducing the need for technical expertise, and minimizing environmentally harmful waste in the dental laboratory [32]. Notwithstanding, the SLM process still depends upon the technique used, and the required technical equipment remains very expensive [14].