## 3 Results
For instance, in the thermocycling groups, the counts for crack formations were consistent across different curing technique groups, with \(p\)-values of 0.373, 0.501, and 0.626 for crack1, crack2, and crack3, respectively, indicating no significant differences between the counts within each group. Similarly, in the non-thermocycling groups, comparable results were observed with \(p\)-values, suggesting no significant variations in the occurrence of crack formations across different groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Incidence of Cracks**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & **Group** & **Absent** & **Present** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \cline{2-5}  & & **_n_(\%)** & **_n_(\%)** & **_n_(\%)** & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Thermocycling Groups} & Group 2: Control & 4(100) & 0(0.0) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group 5: G5\_Curing technique1 & 0(0.0) & 4(100) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group 6: G5\_Curing technique2 & 2(50) & 2(50) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group 9: G7\_Curing technique1 & 1(25) & 3(75) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group 10: G7\_Curing technique2 & 2(50) & 2(50) & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Non-Thermocycling Groups} & Group 1: Control & 4(100) & 0(0.0) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group 3: G5\_Curing technique1 & 2(50) & 2(50) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group 4: G5\_Curing technique2 & 1(25) & 3(75) & 0.111 a  \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group 7: G7\_Curing technique1 & 2(50) & 2(50) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Group 8: G7\_Curing technique2 & 4(100) & 0(0.0) & \\ \hline \(p\)-value & & 0.289 b  \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of incidence of cracks in thermocycling and non-thermocycling groups with various curing techniques. Figure 4: Number and length of cracks in cracked teeth among different curing technique groups under thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions. (Appl: application of curing technique 1; App2: application of curing technique 2). In comparing crack numbers between thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions, the obtained \(p\)-values of 0.375, 0.536, and 0.791 for crack1, crack2, and crack3, respectively, indicate no significant difference in crack number between the two groups. Moreover, the assessment of crack length in dental materials across thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions revealed notable findings (Figure 4). In the thermocycling groups, diverse crack lengths were observed for the first crack, with group 5: g5_curing technique1 displaying a mean length of 31.04 \(\pm\) 4.56, and group 6: g5_curing technique2, group 9: g7_curing technique2, and group 10: g7_curing technique2 exhibiting mean lengths of 28.95 \(\pm\) 0.20, 29.57 \(\pm\) 1.05, and 25.71 \(\pm\) 5.08, respectively. However, statistical analysis did not reveal significant differences among these groups (\(p\) = 0.655). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the second crack lengths between thermocycling groups (\(p\) = 0.221), with group 5: g5_curing technique1 recording a mean length of 29.50 \(\pm\) 0.23 and group 10: g7_curing technique2 at 31.04 \(\pm\) 0.0. However, for the third crack, only group 5: g5_curing technique1 showed a mean length of 21.44 \(\pm\) 0.0, while data for the remaining groups were unavailable due to no record of any cracks formed after the orthodontic debonding with thermocycling. In the non-thermocycling groups, group 3: g5_curing technique1, group 4: g5_curing technique2, and group 7: g7_curing technique1 exhibited mean crack lengths of 27.14 \(\pm\) 2.38, 31.28 \(\pm\) 2.35, and 24.52 \(\pm\) 11.85, respectively, with no significant differences observed between these groups (\(p\) = 0.555). However, data for the second and third cracks length was unavailable for group 3: g5_curing technique1, group 4: g5_curing technique2, and group 7: g7_curing technique1, due to no record of any cracks formed after the orthodontic removal without thermocycling, precluding statistical analysis for these groups.