## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Material**} & **Surface** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dunnett’s Multiple Comparison**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & **Treatment** & **Control** & **MP** & **OG** & **MP+PP** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{CS} & Control & 1 & & & \\  & MP & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & & \\  & OG & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & \\  & MP+PP & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 1 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{CU} & Control & 1 & & & \\  & MP & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & OG & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 1 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & MP+PP & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 0.000 \({}^{*}\) & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)Statistically significant difference (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._that glazing the material is superior in maintaining the surface of different nanohybrid composite resins smooth compared to the conventional polishing modalities even after 10,000 brushing cycles. Optiglaze requires less time than traditional polishing procedures when applied to the surface in a single step. However, the high viscosity of this product might cause separation from the underlying material, especially under occlusal forces [50]. For gloss, a significant difference was observed between all the surface treatment protocols within the tested resin-modified ceramics. There is no clear cutoff point for gloss, but it is recommended to keep the gloss value within the range of 40-60 GU [30,38]. All surface treatment methods under investigation provide acceptable gloss levels or more. Among all the materials used, LU showed the highest gloss value. The tested CAD/CAM materials are recommended to be used as restorative materials, using the mean GU of machine-polished enamel (53 GU) as a comparison [30]. The nanoparticle fillers in LU and CS ranging between 5 and 20 nm are relatively small than the wavelength of visible light (400-800 nm). This increases reflectivity and, in turn, gloss, thereby explaining the high gloss of these resin nanocarics [51]. The current study demonstrated that gloss and surface roughness are related; a higher gloss value is related to lower surface roughness. Surface roughness and gloss have a strong correlation but have different surface characteristics. Roughness is associated with surface topography and can be described by numerous linear or three-dimensional parameters, while gloss is an optical property defined by the reflection of light intensity [33,52]. The angle of the incident light, the material's refractive index, and surface characteristics are a few of the variables that affect gloss [53]. In this study, a 60\({}^{\circ}\) angle of incident light was applied following the ISO 2813 specification for gloss [54], which makes the gloss values dependent on the surface topography and the refractive index of the material. Rough surface topography scatters the light instead of reflecting it, reducing the gloss value. Furthermore, the difference in refractive indices between the resin matrix and fillers has a significant impact on the surface gloss [53,54]. Nanoceramics would have glossier surfaces after polishing because their diffusion reflection is lessened with relatively small filler particles [54, 55, 56], which is consistent with our findings. The clinician should select the proper method to perform the clinical adjustment because the grit size of a diamond bur will affect how much the material can be damaged; a larger grit size will result in more damage. This is true even though their composition greatly influences resin-modified ceramic materials' surface roughness and gloss [57]. The design of the disc-shaped specimens, which do not closely mirror the anatomy of natural teeth, since cusps and fissures can have distinct effects on the results, is one of the study's shortcomings. Complicated occlusions and pH variations in the oral cavity were not replicated in our investigation. Future studies should focus on other available polishing and finishing methods.