## 3 Results  
Table 3 presents the \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) values at each time point for all groups, including both mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) and median with interquartile range (IQR) values to reflect central tendency and distribution spread. All groups exhibited similar trends over time, with no statistically significant difference in \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) values being observed (\(p>0.05\)). Mean \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) values at four follow-up intervals (T0-T7, T0-T30, T0-T90, and T0-T180) for all study groups. All mean values remained below the clinically perceptible threshold (\(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) = 3.5), with no statistically significant differences over time. Error bars represent standard deviations Figure 2). Throughout this study, no statistically significant differences were observed between the dentin tubule occlusion methods and the calcium silicate cements in terms of tooth discoloration, which was evaluated at baseline (T0) and after 7, 30, 90, and 180 days (\(p>0.05\)). According to the Friedman test, there were no significant changes in color over time in any of the experimental groups (\(p\) = 0.323-0.976), indicating stable color performance across all timepoints. Similarly, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences between the various surface treatments and the types of PPSCs used (e.g., T0-T30, \(p\) = 0.377). This suggests that neither the material type nor the surface conditioning method had a statistically significant effect on coronal discoloration. Photographs of representative specimens taken at baseline (T0) and after 6 months (T180) are presented in Figure 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **T0–T7** & **T0–T30** & **T0–T90** & **T0–T180** & \(p\) +** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group 0**} & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & 2.03 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.82 & 2.1 \(\pm\) 1.18 & 1.83 \(\pm\) 1.12 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Median (IQR)** & 1.85 (1.04–3.11) & 1.63 (0.77–2.21) & 1.9 (1.12–3.26) & 1.86 (0.89–2.43) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group 1**} & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & 1.76 \(\pm\) 0.99 & 2.14 \(\pm\) 1.32 & 1.94 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 1.94 \(\pm\) 0.84 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Median (IQR)** & 1.87 (0.67–2.66) & 2.61 (0.56–3.25) & 1.9 (0.82–2.85) & 1.72 (1.24–2.87) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group 2**} & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & 1.49 \(\pm\) 1.28 & 1.88 \(\pm\) 0.95 & 1.68 \(\pm\) 1.01 & 1.57 \(\pm\) 1.27 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Median (IQR)** & 1.28 (0.39–2.34) & 1.43 (1.2–2.82) & 1.79 (0.58–2.62) & 0.84 (0.72–2.53) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group 3**} & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & 2.31 \(\pm\) 0.95 & 2.54 \(\pm\) 0.94 & 2.68 \(\pm\) 1.18 & 2.62 \(\pm\) 0.5 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Median (IQR)** & 2.18 (1.62–3.2) & 2.62 (1.92–3.33) & 2.61 (1.88–3.35) & 2.48 (1.91–3.2) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group 4**} & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & 1.85 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 2.38 \(\pm\) 1.59 & 2.02 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 1.85 \(\pm\) 1.12 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Median (IQR)** & 1.88 (1.35–2.43) & 2.21 (0.81–3.32) & 2.29 (1.38–2.52) & 1.73 (0.89–2.78) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group 5**} & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & 2.16 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 2.59 \(\pm\) 1.57 & 1.87 \(\pm\) 1.09 & 1.88 \(\pm\) 0.87 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Median (IQR)** & 2.47 (0.83–3.03) & 2.19 (1.28–4.32) & 1.9 (0.84–2.72) & 1.86 (1.26–2.51) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group 6**} & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & 2.22 \(\pm\) 1.35 & 1.78 \(\pm\) 0.75 & 2.35 \(\pm\) 1.28 & 2.85 \(\pm\) 1.22 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Median (IQR)** & 2.01 (0.94–3.27) & 1.67 (1.18–2.38) & 2.03 (1.75–2.85) & 2.52 (1.81–4.4) & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group 7**} & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & 2.23 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 1.77 \(\pm\) 1.09 & 1.68 \(\pm\) 1.08 & 1.53 \(\pm\) 0.64 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Median (IQR)** & 2.03 (1.64–2.86) & 1.48 (1.12–2.21) & 1.5 (0.68–2.78) & 1.34 (1.01–1.89) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) and median (interquartile range, IQR) values of \(\Delta\)E\({}_{00}\) at different time points (T0, T7, T30, T90, and T180) for each experimental group.