## 3 Results  
The findings of this study indicate that the discrepancies in the attachment shape between the planned design and the actual attachment were more pronounced for the traditionally created attachments compared to those produced through 3D printing. Specifically, descriptive statistics revealed larger disparities in shape (0.85 mm) (Table 1) and puff (Table 2) (1.02 mm) for the traditionally created attachments, particularly at the gingival level.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Materials** & **Touth** & **GverShapePoint** & & & **CverShapePoint** & & & **OverShapePoint** & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Vertical} & & Mean \(\pm\) SD & Min & Max & Mean \(\pm\) SD & Min & Max & Mean \(\pm\) SD & Min & Max \\  & & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) \\ \cline{1-1}  & MM-TA & 2.6 & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 0.15 & 0.85 & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.09 & 0.35 & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.15 & 0.22 \\  & MM-TA & 2.1 & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 0.07 & 0.65 & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 0.04 & 0.51 & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 0.04 & 0.39 \\  & MM-TA & 1.1 & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.68 & 0.78 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.04 & 0.2 & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.04 & 0.24 \\ Cutting Plane & MM-TA & 1.6 & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.16 & 0.16 & 0.57 & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 0.13 & 0.44 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.08 & 0.19 \\  & MM-CA & 2.6 & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.22 & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.1 & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.06 & 0.21 \\  & MM-CA & 2.1 & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.07 & 0.17 & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.13 & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.17 & 0.3 \\  & MM-CA & 1.1 & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.02 & 0.2 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.13 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.05 & 0.3 \\  & MM-CA & 1.6 & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.09 & 0.32 & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 0.04 & 0.5 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 0.05 & 0.4 \\ \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**ChorShapePoint**} & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Horizontal} & & & Mean \(\pm\) SD & Min & Max & Mean \(\pm\) SD & Min & Max & Mean \(\pm\) SD & Min & Max \\  & & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) & (mm) \\ \cline{1-1}  & MM-TA & 2.6 & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 0.12 & 0.43 & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.07 & 0.29 & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.11 & 0.35 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MM-TA & 2.1 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.03 & 0.14 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.1 & 0.22 & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.09 & 0.22 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MM-TA & 1.1 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.11 & 0.24 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.2 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.14 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MM-TA & 1.6 & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 0.1 & 0.9 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 0.1 & 0.47 & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.16 & 0.46 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MM-CA & 2.6 & 0.16 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.06 & 0.23 & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.07 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.14 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MM-CA & 2.1 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.05 & 0.12 & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.11 & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.04 & 0.23 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MM-CA & 1.1 & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 0.07 & 0.43 & 0.07 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.09 & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.01 & 0.29 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MM-CA & 1.6 & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.11 & 0.32 & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.04 & 0.45 & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.02 & 0.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Vertical and horizontal outcomes considered in the shape analysis.  
Furthermore, inferential statistics were employed to assess which type of attachment, traditional or 3D-printed, demonstrated fewer deviations from the planned design. The results revealed that the 3D-printed attachments exhibited greater accuracy in terms of the shape reproduction and displayed less puff at the attachment-model interface compared to traditionally created attachments (Table 3).  
These findings suggest that utilizing 3D printing technology for attachment creation may lead to improved accuracy and reduced discrepancies between the planned and actual attachment shapes, particularly when compared to traditional attachment fabrication methods.