## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Material**} & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Surface** \\ **Treatment** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dunnett’s Multiple Comparison**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **Control** & **MP** & **OG** & **MP+PP** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{LU} & Control & 1 & & & \\  & MP & 0.009 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & & \\  & OG & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & \\  & MP+PP & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{VE} & Control & 1 & & & \\  & MP & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & & \\  & OG & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & \\  & MP+PP & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.006 \({}^{*}\) & 1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CS} & Control & 1 & & & \\  & MP & 0.188 & 1 & & \\  & OG & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.005 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & \\  & MP+PP & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.014 \({}^{*}\) & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CU} & Control & 1 & & & \\  & MP & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & OG & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & MP+PP & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.00 \({}^{*}\) & 0.006 \({}^{*}\) & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Pairwise comparison of the Ra of the surface-treated CAD/CAM ceramics. Figure 3: Overall mean Ra of the resin-modified ceramics irrespective of the surface treatment. Dashed line indicates the Ra threshold limit (0.2 \(\upmu\)m). Table 5 presents the outcome of the MANOVA of GU, which suggests that the CAD/CAM material, surface treatment, and the interaction among them significantly influenced the GU of the materials (\(p<0.001\)). The mean GU of the surface-treated CAD/CAM ceramics is summarized in Table 6. The highest and lowest GU were presented by the glazed LU (90.48 \(\pm\) 4.69 GU) and the control VE specimens (23.32 \(\pm\) 2.41 GU), respectively. Irrespective of the CAD/CAM  
Figure 4: Scanning electron microscopy micrographs of the CAD/CAM materials after surface treatment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & **Sum of** & \multirow{2}{*}{**df**} & **Mean** & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & **Sig * \\  & **Squares** & & **Square** & & \\ \hline CAD/CAM materials & 14,859.47 & 3 & 4953.16 & 306.87 & 0.000 \\ Surface treatment & 50,368.31 & 3 & 16,789.43 & 1040.19 & 0.000 \\ CAD/CAM materials \(\times\) Surface treatment & 2006.13 & 9 & 222.90 & 13.81 & 0.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* Significant difference (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: MANOVA outcome for gloss. material type, the glazed specimens demonstrated the highest GU (73.16 \(\pm\) 4.6 GU), while the control specimens had the lowest GU (29.29 \(\pm\) 3.48 GU). Figure 5 presents the overall mean GU of the CAD/CAM ceramics irrespective of the surface treatment. Among the tested materials, LU (65.6 \(\pm\) 2.9 GU) and VE (42.43 \(\pm\) 2.59 GU) had the highest and lowest GU, respectively. The GU of all tested materials were within the acceptable range (40-60 GU). The [PERSON]'s post hoc test to identify the pairwise significance showed that GU were significantly different among the surface-treated groups within a material (\(p\) < 0.001) (Table 7). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Surface** & **LU** & **VE** & **CS** & **CU** & **Total** \\ \hline Control & 35.87 \(\pm\) 1.95 & 23.32 \(\pm\) 2.41 & 31.05 \(\pm\) 5.60 & 26.92 \(\pm\) 3.95 & 29.29 \(\pm\) 3.48 \\ MP & 57.19 \(\pm\) 1.95 & 38.34 \(\pm\) 2.76 & 49.24 \(\pm\) 5.91 & 41.79 \(\pm\) 4.30 & 46.64 \(\pm\) 3.73 \\ OG & 90.48 \(\pm\) 4.69 & 59.54 \(\pm\) 2.80 & 76.92 \(\pm\) 5.11 & 65.69 \(\pm\) 6.05 & 73.16 \(\pm\) 4.6 \\ MP+PP & 78.88 \(\pm\) 3.02 & 48.52 \(\pm\) 2.41 & 58.82 \(\pm\) 4.16 & 52.06 \(\pm\) 3.40 & 59.57 \(\pm\) 3.25 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Mean gloss (GU) of the surface-treated CAD/CAM ceramics.