## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Horizontal Anteroposterior Straight Test Value = 15.10**} \\ \hline  & **t (df)** & **Mean Diff. (95\% CI)** & _p-Value_ \\ \hline ALG & 24.39 (9) & 0.21 (0.19, 0.23) & \textless{}0.001 \\ PVS-2 & 28.93 (9) & 0.09 (0.06, 0.11) & \textless{}0.001 \\ DIGITAL & 18.61 (9) & 0.47 (0.43, 0.50) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline  & **Horizontal Anteroposterior Curved Test Value = 41.54** & \\ ALG & \(-5.31\) (9) & \(-0.13\) (\(-0.19\), \(-0.08\)) & \textless{}0.001 \\ PVS-2 & \(-9.43\) (9) & \(-0.15\) (\(-0.19\), 0.12) & \textless{}0.001 \\ DIGITAL & 12.94 (9) & 0.21 (0.17, 0.25) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Cross Arch Test Value = 45.02**} \\ ALG & 14.85 (9) & 0.30 (0.26, 0.35) & \textless{}0.001 \\ PVS-2 & 12.13 (9) & 0.24 (0.20, 0.29) & \textless{}0.001 \\ DIGITAL & 18.19 (9) & 0.26 (0.23, 0.29) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Vertical Test Value = 4.31**} \\ ALG & \(-6.72\) (9) & \(-0.23\) (\(-0.31\), \(-0.15\)) & \textless{}0.001 \\ PVS-2 & \(-48.81\) (9) & \(-0.20\) (\(-0.21\), \(-0.19\)) & \textless{}0.001 \\ DIGITAL & \(-50.25\) (9) & \(-0.21\) (\(-0.22\), \(-020\)) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} ALG—alginate; PVS-2—two-step putty-wash polyvinyl siloxane; df—degrees of freedom.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: One sample _t_-test for the dispersion of measurements around the test values (typodont master cast measurements). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dimension** & **Cement** & \(n\) & **Mean** & **SD** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **F Statistics** \\ **(df)** \\ \end{tabular} & _p-Value a_ \\ \hline  & ALG & 10 & 15.31 & 0.03 & 236.39 & \\ HAPS & PVS-2 & 10 & 15.19 & 0.04 & (2.27) & \textless{}0.001 \\  & DIGITAL & 10 & 15.57 & 0.05 & & \\ \hline  & ALG & 10 & 41.41 & 0.08 & 108.52 & \\ HAPC & PVS-2 & 10 & 41.39 & 0.05 & (2.27) & \textless{}0.001 \\  & DIGITAL & 10 & 41.75 & 0.05 & & \\ \hline  & ALG & 10 & 45.32 & 0.06 & 2.67 & \\ HCA & PVS-2 & 10 & 45.26 & 0.06 & (2.27) & 0.088 \\  & DIGITAL & 10 & 45.28 & 0.04 & & \\ \hline  & ALG & 10 & 4.08 & 0.04 & \\ V & PVS-2 & 10 & 4.11 & 0.05 & (2.27) & 0.543 \\  & DIGITAL & 10 & 4.10 & 0.05 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of dimensional accuracy (mm) between ALG, PVS-2, and digitally printed models using one-way ANOVA. materials experienced contraction at the HAPC and V dimensions but underwent expansion at the HAPS and HCA dimensions. However, digitally printed models showed expansion at HAPS, HAPC, and HCA, but underwent contraction at the V dimension. Table 7 shows the percentage of deviations (%) and absolute changes (\(\upmu\)m) of dimensions of stone casts from those of the typodont master cast for the three tested groups. A dimensional change of more than 0.5% is reflected as a clinically significant distortion, as per the American Dental Association specification no. 19 for elastomeric type I impressions [13]. Figure 6 summarizes the data for the three groups. The figure demonstrates that the only measurement that did not exceed 0.5% in dimensional change was the HAPC measurement for stone casts made by both ALG and PVS-2 impression materials and for the digitally printed models. However, the greatest number of distortions above 0.5% (at HAPS, HCA, and V) was produced by the digitally printed models.