## 3 Results
### Correlation Between Gloss and Surface Roughness  
No statistically significant correlation was found between the gloss and roughness values of the control readings (\(p=0.683\)). There was no statistically significant correlation between the gloss and roughness values after glazing (\(p=0.539\)). There was no statistically significant relationship between the gloss and roughness values after grinding (\(p=0.069\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control** & **Glazing** & **Grinding** & **Replishing** & **Test Statistic** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{CT} & 64.2 \(\pm\) 5.54 & 101.98 \(\pm\) 2.71 & 14.13 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 86.22 \(\pm\) 3.68 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\chi^{2}\) = 30} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(\mathbf{<0.001}\)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & 62.55 (58.83–75.77) & 10(\%) & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{LS Block} & 67.95 \(\pm\) 6.7 & 101.29 \(\pm\) 2.43 & 13.46 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 84.34 \(\pm\) 2.15 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\chi^{2}\) = 30} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(\mathbf{<0.001}\)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & 68.12 (58.07–76.5) & 10(\%) & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{EC} & 62.05 \(\pm\) 5.9 & 100 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 13.92 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 87.55 \(\pm\) 7.56 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\chi^{2}\) = 28.92} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(\mathbf{<0.001}\)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & 99.85 (54.23–71.93) & 96.9 \(\pm\) (98.07–102.53) & 13.88 (13.63–14.37) & 9(\%) & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{KAT UTML} & 72.34 \(\pm\) 3.71 & 101.84 \(\pm\) 2.62 & 15.9 \(\pm\) 1.75 & 104.92 \(\pm\) 9.95 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\chi^{2}\) = 27.12} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(\mathbf{<0.001}\)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & 72.38 (66.87–76.79) & 10(\%) & 102 (98.2–107.4) & 15.3 (13.83–18.53) & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Test Statistic} & \(\chi^{2}\) = 13.537 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 5.702 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 28.303 & \(\chi^{2}\) = 20.75 & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(\mathbf{<0.001}\)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & **0.004** & 0.127 & **-0.001** & **-0.001** & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of the gloss values according to the ceramic and the process applied to each ceramic (glazing, grinding, and repolishing). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Glazing** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mechanical Polishing**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Median** \\ **(Min-Max)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Median** \\ **(Min-Max)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Test Statistic** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{CT} & 101.98 \(\pm\) 2.71 & \begin{tabular}{c} 102.95 \\ (96.77–105.07) \\ \end{tabular} & 104.33 \(\pm\) 3.03 & \begin{tabular}{c} 103.77 \\ (99.97–111.6) \\ \end{tabular} & U = 27.50 & 0.088 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{LS Block} & 101.29 \(\pm\) 2.43 & \begin{tabular}{c} 100.37 \\ (97.3–105.87) \\ \end{tabular} & 102.34 \(\pm\) 4.27 & \begin{tabular}{c} 102.6 \\ (94.1–108.17) \\ \end{tabular} & U = 38.00 & 0.364 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{EC} & 100 \(\pm\) 1.8 & \begin{tabular}{c} 99.6 \\ (98.07–102.53) \\ \end{tabular} & 95.76 \(\pm\) 5.66 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 95.37 \\ (85.4–103.47) \\ \end{tabular} & U = 27.00 & 0.082 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{KAT UTML} & 101.84 \(\pm\) 2.62 & 102 (98.2–107.4) & 161.7 \(\pm\) 15.72 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 167.25 \\ (129.37–179.93) \\ \end{tabular} & U = 0.00 & **-0.001** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Test Statistic} & \(\chi^{2}\) = 5.702 & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(\chi^{2}\) = 28.879} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{U: Mann–Whitney U test; \(\chi^{2}\): Kruskal–Wallis test; mean \(\pm\) SD (standard deviation); median (minimum–maximum); \(\text{}^{\text{a.b.}}\): there is no difference between ceramics with the same letter within each column.} \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(\chi^{2}\) = 5.702} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{\(p\)} & 0.127 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison of gloss values according to the ceramic and surface finishing process.