## 3 Results and Discussions
### Three-Dimensional Scanning of Sample 1
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to find the significance of the scanning factors for the dimensional errors at a confidence level of 95%. A 3D scanning factor was declared to be significant if its \(p\)-value was found to be less than 0.05. Volumetric errors were finally calculated in real and virtual ambiences using CMM and Solidworks, respectively. Overall, regardless of their utilization before or after scanning, none of the 3D scanning factors were found to be significant for S1. These 3D scanning factors had lower PCRs for watertightness and simplification throughout when compared to the higher error PCRs for all four modes of scanning for Sample 1 except for modes C and D. In modes C and D, the error PCR was slightly lower than that of one scanning factor, which may be neglected. The interaction plots were worth plotting as the error PCRs were found to be higher and all the scanning factors were found to be insignificant since combined effects may be suspected and expected to be significant and are a reason for achieving higher values of error PCRs. From the interactions (Figure 6 and Figures S3, S5, and S7 of the Supplementary File), our overall findings depict that the error PCRs were found to be higher than the PCRs of the 3D scanning factors for all modes of 3D scanning. This indicates that the independent effect of a 3D scanning factor on reducing 3D scanning errors is frequently absent due to greater values of SIs and the presence of interactions or the combined effects of various 3D scanning factors on the 3D scanning error. Therefore, the 3D scanning factors interact with each other, or their impact on the 3D scanning error is only possible if they act together simultaneously. Main or independent effects were also considered to find the optimal levels of 3D scanning factors that cause minimal volumetric errors. PCRs and \(p\)-values, which demonstrate the significance of the 3D scanner factors, indicate the overall independent vitality or significance of a single factor without describing the significance of its levels. As far as the plots of the main effects are concerned, a MW level of watertightness was found to be the optimal level for modes A, B, and C but not mode D, which demonstrated an optimal watertightness level of UW. Additionally, 70% was found to be the optimal level of simplification for modes B, C, and D but not mode A, which demonstrated an optimal simplification level of 50%. Of the results, it can be deduced that the 3D scanning of simple objects may provide unnecessary errors as 3D scanning modes require either smoothness or sharpness or both to prepare the scanned models for 3D/4D printing. This may take more time when compared to the geometric modeling of simple objects. In other words, the 3D scanning of simple objects may result in handling a complex data analysis, making it more intricate in terms of time, cost, precision, and accuracy than geometric modeling. Although the significance of the 3D scanner factors is crucial for the significance of both the factors of S1 and S2 towards a simple object, they are less reliable as 3D scanners are typically used for intricate objects that do not have blueprints or drawings. This is also true because simple objects may be conveniently geometrically modeled without errors. This implies that the simple models should necessarily be digitized via Solidworks or 3D modeling software instead of conducting a 3D scan.