## 3 Results
The analysis of ARI (1) reveals interesting patterns between thermocycling and non-thermocycling groups (Table 4). Thermocycling groups 5 (g5_ curing technique1) and 6 (g5_ curing technique2) showed 50% and 75% of cases with ARI (1) presence, respectively, although the \(p\)-value for group 5 (g5_ curing technique1) was not significant (\(p\) = 0.061). In contrast, all cases in thermocycling groups 9 (g7_ curing technique2) and 10 (g7_ curing technique2) had no ARI (1). Among the non-thermocycling groups, group 3 (g5_ curing technique1) displayed a significant difference (\(p\) = 0.025), with all cases exhibiting ARI (1). Group 4 (g5_ curing technique2) showed a similar pattern to thermocycling group 6 (g5_ curing technique2), with 75% of cases showing ARI (1). Notably, non-thermocycling group 8 (g7_ curing technique2) exhibited a lower percentage (25%) of cases with ARI (1). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Vertical**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Horizontal**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Oblique**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & **Group** & **No** & **Yes** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Value**} & **No** & **Yes** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Value**} & **No** & **Yes** \\ \cline{2-10}  & & **_n(\%)_ & **_n(\%)_ & & **_n(\%)_ & & **_n(\%)_ & & **_n(\%)_ & **_n(\%)_ & **_p-Value_** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Thermocycling} & Group 5: G5\_Curing & \multirow{2}{*}{1(25)} & Group 6: G5\_Curing & \multirow{2}{*}{0(0.0)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(100)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.809 a} & 4(100) & 0(0.0) & \multirow{2}{*}{1.00 a} & 3(75) & 1(25) & \\  & & technique2 & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Group 9: G7\_Curing & \multirow{2}{*}{1(33.3)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(66.7)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.809 a} & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & \multirow{2}{*}{1.00 a} & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & \\  & & technique1 & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Group 10: G7\_Curing & \multirow{2}{*}{0(0.0)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(100)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(100)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0(0.0)} & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & \multirow{2}{*}{1.00 (0.0)} & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & \\  & & technique2 & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Thermocycling Groups} & Group 3: G5\_Curing & \multirow{2}{*}{0(0.0)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(100)} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.513 a} & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & \multirow{4}{*}{1.00 a} & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & \\  & & technique1 & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Group 7: G7\_Curing & \multirow{2}{*}{0(0.0)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(100)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(100)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0(0.0)} & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & \\  & & technique1 & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(p\)-value} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.829 a} & \multirow{4}{*}{ND +} & \multirow{4}{*}{1.00 a} & 2(66.7) & \multirow{4}{*}{0.513 a} & 3(100) & 0(0.0) & \multirow{4}{*}{1.00 a} & 2(66.7) & 1(33.3) & 0.513 a \\  & & technique1 & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Group 7: G7\_Curing & \multirow{2}{*}{0(0.0)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(100)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(100)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0(0.0)} & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & 2(100) & 0(0.0) & \\  & & technique1 & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(p\)-value} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.829 a} & \multirow{4}{*}{ND +} & \multirow{4}{*}{ND +} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.829 a} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Chi-Square Test was conducted. \({}^{*}\) Not determined.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Directional characteristics of cracks in cracked teeth among different curing technique groups under thermocycling and non-thermocycling conditions. The analysis of ARI (2) reveals no significant differences between thermocycling and non-thermocycling groups (Table 4). In thermocycling group 5 (g5_curing technique1), 25% of cases exhibited ARI (2), although the \(p\)-value (0.392) indicates no statistically significant difference compared to other groups. Similarly, all other thermocycling groups (groups 6, 9, and 10) showed no instances of ARI (2), reflecting consistency across these groups.