## 3 Results  
The data were first analyzed descriptively. Descriptive statistics for precision and bias for the height of the tooth, mesial-distal distance, and buccal-lingual distance are shown in Table 1. The arch curvature and interdental distances were single measurements and were omitted from the analysis. The values are expressed in millimeters. The descriptive statistics show that SLA models show a lower average precision for tooth height, but higher values for the mesial-distal and buccal-lingual directions. Both methods show similar standard deviations for precision. On the other hand, DLP \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**The Height of the Tooth**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mesial–Distal Distance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Buccal–Lingual Distance**} \\  & & **SLA** & **DLP** & **SLA** & **DLP** & **SLA** & **DLP** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Precision (RMS)} & Mean & 0.016 & 0.020 & 0.042 & 0.023 & 0.031 & 0.026 \\  & Lower Bound & 0.012 & 0.016 & 0.030 & 0.017 & 0.027 & 0.022 \\  & Upper Bound & 0.019 & 0.024 & 0.053 & 0.029 & 0.035 & 0.030 \\  & 5\% Adjusted average & 0.015 & 0.020 & 0.040 & 0.022 & 0.031 & 0.025 \\  & Median & 0.015 & 0.018 & 0.035 & 0.021 & 0.030 & 0.023 \\  & Standard deviation & 0.007 & 0.008 & 0.021 & 0.011 & 0.012 & 0.012 \\  & Minimum & 0.008 & 0.009 & 0.017 & 0.011 & 0.009 & 0.009 \\  & Maxim & 0.034 & 0.033 & 0.086 & 0.054 & 0.051 & 0.050 \\  & Radius & 0.026 & 0.024 & 0.069 & 0.044 & 0.042 & 0.042 \\  & Interval interquartile & 0.007 & 0.014 & 0.036 & 0.012 & 0.019 & 0.020 \\  & Asymmetry & 1.566 & 0.308 & 0.885 & 1.658 & 0.001 & 0.453 \\  & Kurtoses & 3.440 & \(-1.057\) & \(-0.353\) & 3.736 & \(-0.799\) & \(-0.774\) \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Bias} & Mean & 0.017 & 0.069 & 0.033 & 0.063 & 0.037 & 0.039 \\  & Lower Bound & 0.011 & 0.057 & 0.023 & 0.052 & 0.032 & 0.030 \\  & Upper Bound & 0.023 & 0.081 & 0.042 & 0.074 & 0.043 & 0.049 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 5\% Adjusted average & 0.017 & 0.069 & 0.033 & 0.062 & 0.037 & 0.037 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Median & 0.013 & 0.074 & 0.034 & 0.058 & 0.036 & 0.036 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Standard deviation & 0.012 & 0.023 & 0.017 & 0.020 & 0.017 & 0.029 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Minimum & 0.002 & 0.016 & 0.005 & 0.042 & 0.003 & 0.000 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Maximum & 0.036 & 0.112 & 0.060 & 0.107 & 0.067 & 0.136 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Radius & 0.034 & 0.096 & 0.055 & 0.066 & 0.064 & 0.135 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Interval interquartile & 0.022 & 0.029 & 0.025 & 0.027 & 0.025 & 0.040 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Asymmetry & 0.268 & \(-0.494\) & \(-0.055\) & 1.025 & \(-0.376\) & 0.943 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Kurtoses & \(-1.443\) & 1.006 & \(-0.913\) & 0.210 & \(-0.618\) & 1.717 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive analysis for precision and bias in the study group. models show higher average bias than SLA models as well as a greater standard deviation of values. Because an objective measure of significance is needed to correctly evaluate the differences between the two printing methods, statistical tests were used to determine if the differences in scores are statistically significant. Parametric tests assume the normality of data to be reliable. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to determine if the data is normally distributed across the analyzed features (Table 2). Because the data was not normally distributed (\(p>0.05\)), non-parametric tests were used, as they do not make the assumption of normality of data. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the two groups (SLA and DLP models). A Mann-Whitney U test was performed to identify whether there were any differences in tooth height precision and bias scores between the SLA and DLP methods (N = 32). The precision scores were statistically not significantly different between SLA (average rank = 13.94) and DLP (average rank = 19.06), U = 169, z = 1545, \(p\) = 128 using an exact sample distribution for U ([PERSON], 1973) [20].