## 3 Results  
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistical analysis for the OMG, GMG, and PMG measurement points. Pairwise comparisons of the marginal and internal gap values among the three scanning methods, including confidence intervals and effect sizes (Cohen's d), are presented in Table 2. Table 3 shows the analysis for the AIG and OIG measurement points. Both tables present the mean, standard deviation, upper bound, and lower bound values for all groups. Figure 1: Marginal and internal gap evaluation (5 equal slices for each section and measurement points): (**A**) Bucco-lingual sections (OMG, AIG, OIG); (**B**) Mesio-distal sections (OIG, AIG, GMG); (**C**) Transverse sections (PMG). According to the ANOVA test results, statistically significant differences were identified among the groups. The Bonferroni multiple comparison test results indicated no statistically significant difference between the intraoral scanner group (94.09 \(\upmu\)m \(\pm\) 86.45 \(\upmu\)m) and the model scanner group (99.18 \(\upmu\)m \(\pm\) 24.67 \(\upmu\)m) for the OMG, GMG, and PMG measurement points (\(p\) > 0.05). In contrast, the CBCT group (166.72 \(\upmu\)m \(\pm\) 49.86 \(\upmu\)m) exhibited significantly greater marginal gap dimensions compared to the other groups, and this difference was statistically significant (\(p\) < 0.05). Similarly, for the AIG and OIG measurement points, no statistically significant difference was found between the intraoral scanner group (219.45 \(\upmu\)m \(\pm\) 51.48 \(\upmu\)m) and the model scanner group (167.72 \(\upmu\)m \(\pm\) 21.43 \(\upmu\)m) (\(p\) > 0.05), whereas the CBCT group (219.45 \(\upmu\)m \(\pm\) 51.48 \(\upmu\)m) showed significantly higher results (\(p\) < 0.05). The average values of the OMG, PMG, and GMG measurement points were used to assess marginal fit, while the average values of the AIG and OIG measurement points were \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**OMG**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**GMG**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PMG**} \\ \hline
**Group** & **N** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\ **(\(\upmu\)m)** \\ \end{tabular} & **95\% CIM (\(\upmu\)m)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\ **(\(\upmu\)m)** \\ \end{tabular} & **95\% CIM (\(\upmu\)m)** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\ **(\(\upmu\)m)** \\ \end{tabular} & **95\% CIM (\(\upmu\)m)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean \(\pm\) SD** \\ **(\(\upmu\)m)** \\ \end{tabular} & **95\% CIM (\(\upmu\)m)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{} \\ CBCT & 11 & 166.72 \(\pm\) 49.86 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 133.22 & 200.22 & 177.27 \(\pm\) 52.79 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 141.8 & 212.73 & 168.09 \(\pm\) 41.43 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 140.25 & 195.92 \\ \multicolumn{10}{c}{} \\ Cataner & 11 & 94.09 \(\pm\) 86.45 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 86.45 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 86.45 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 101.72 & 105.45 \(\pm\) 30.77 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 84.77 & 126.13 & 95.72 \(\pm\) 12.44 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 87.36 & 104.08 \\ \multicolumn{10}{c}{} \\ Model & 11 & 99.18 \(\pm\) 24.67 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 82.67 & 115.68 & 128.18 \(\pm\) 16.62 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 117.01 & 139.35 & 102.36 \(\pm\) 14.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 92.87 & 111.85 \\ \hline \end{tabular} The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Groups with the same letters do not exhibit a statistically significant difference. SD: Standard deviation; CIM: Confidence Interval for Mean; LB: Lower bound; UB: Upper bound.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of occlusal marginal gap (OMG), gingival marginal gap (GMG), and proximal marginal gap (PMG).