## 3 Results
### Fracture Resistance Values of the Fixed Partial Detture Groups  
The mean fracture resistance values for provisional fixed partial dentures were found to be 640.33 \(\pm\) 130.63 N for conventional manufacturing (\(n\) = 20), 926.38 \(\pm\) 547.83 N for subtractive manufacturing (\(n\) = 20), and 371.08 \(\pm\) 102.86 N for additive manufacturing (\(n\) = 20). The mean fracture resistance was 506.66 \(\pm\) 147.89 N for aged specimens (\(n\) = 30) and 785.20 \(\pm\) 509.02 N for non-aged specimens (\(n\) = 30). According to the results of the two-way ANOVA, the effects of different manufacturing techniques (\(p\) < 0.001) and aging (\(p\) < 0.001) on fracture resistance values were statistically \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Source of Variation**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Degrees of Freedom (df)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Sum of Squares**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean of**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**F**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**} \\ \hline Manufacturing Method & 2 & 17,859,090.3 & 8,929,545.16 & 127.984 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Aging & 1 & 371,044.301 & 371,044.301 & 5.318 & 0.025 \\ Manufacturing Method \(\times\) Aging & 2 & 312,515.861 & 156,257.930 & 2.240 & 0.116 \\ Error & 54 & 3,767,631.35 & 69,770.951 & - & - \\ Total & 59 & 22,310,281.8 & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Two-way ANOVA results for the tested crowns. Figure 4: Visual comparison of the mean fracture load (N) of crowns. CM, conventional manufacturing; SM, subtractive manufacturing; AM, additive manufacturing. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Production Method**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Aging**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Agng**} \\  & & **Applied** & **Not Applied** \\ \hline Conventional & Mean \(\pm\) SD & 924.03 \(\pm\) 325.56 & 1280.48 \(\pm\) 357.61 \\ Manufacturing & Median & 851.99 & 1284.15 \\  & (Q1–Q3) & (701.75–1019.89) & (1006.55–1599.73) \\  & Min–Max & 530.79–1708.83 & 645.30–1688.23 \\ Subtractive & Mean \(\pm\) SD & 1645.41 \(\pm\) 346.82 & 1741.82 \(\pm\) 200.64 \\ Manufacturing & Median & 1597.78 & 1675.99 \\  & (Q1–Q3) & (1433.04–1725.63) & (1585.92–1810.34) \\  & Min–Max & 1293.02–2481.09 & 1551.66–2220.96 \\ Additive & Mean \(\pm\) SD & 350.59 N \(\pm\) 108.91 & 369.56 \(\pm\) 1111.13 \\ Manufacturing & Median (Q1–Q3) & 377 & 367.08 \\  & (236.25–422.56) & (293.52–457.48) \\  & Min–Max & 192.7–516.17 & 212.5–533.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive and comparative statistics for the fracture load values (N) of experimental crown groups. significant. Additionally, a significant interaction was observed between the manufacturing technique and aging factors (\(p\) < 0.001) (Table 4). Descriptive and comparative statistics of the fracture resistance values for aged and non-aged fixed partial denture groups are presented in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 5 (\(n\) = 10). [PERSON]'s multiple comparison test showed statistically significant differences in fracture resistance between the groups of CM and SM (\(p\) = 0.002), CM and AM (\(p\) = 0.004), and SM and AM (\(p\) < 0.001). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source of Variation** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Degrees of** \\ **Freedom (df)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Sum of Squares** \\ **(SS)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean of** \\ **Squares (MS)** \\ \end{tabular} & **F** & \(p\) \\ \hline Manufacturing Method & 2 & 3,084,537.24 & 1,542,268.62 & 23.758 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Aging & 1 & 1,163,758.04 & 1,163,758.03 & 17.927 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Manufacturing Method \(\times\) Aging & 2 & 1,558,295.57 & 779,147.79 & 12.003 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Error & 54 & 3,505,416.69 & 64,915.124 & — & — \\ Total & 59 & 9,312,007.54 & — & — & — \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Two-way ANOVA results for the experimental fixed partial denture groups. Figure 5: Visual comparison of the mean fracture load (N) of provisional fixed partial dentures.