## 4 Discussion  
The null hypothesis was retained for the maximum load across the different tested groups. At the same time, it was rejected for elastic modulus, Yield Strength (Offset 0.2%), and Compressive Strength when the significance level was \(p<0.001\). Temporary or interim fixed prosthodontics are commonly used as a step towards fabricating final fixed prostheses [3,22]. 3D-printed temporaries or milled PMMA can serve as an interim treatment option [32]. One observation from an author during the clinical experience was that most fractures in 3D-printed temporary prostheses occurred in the connector area. This prompted the authors' interest in evaluating the factors that may lead to connector failures. Connectors are between two adjacent retainers and between a retainer and a pontic [2]. To characterize the effects of chewing and mastication on connectors, we begin with the simplest form--connectors between two crowns, namely, splinted crowns. Then, we will progress to more complex connector designs in future studies. Long-span bridges or fixed procedures rely on splinting the retainers at the end of the prosthesis to ensure a strong structure. The dimensions of the connectors are crucial factors that can affect the outcome of fixed prosthodonics treatment [22]. This study differs from previous studies in isolating the connector area and testing the effects of direct static loading on the connector area of two splinted crowns [16,18,19,24,25,26,33,34]. The methodology utilized two adjacent abutments on metal dies that were not previously used in any study. We employed a metal die made of milled aluminum, with dimensions standardized according to [PERSON]'s recommendations and average tooth dimensions [22,23]. The production of these 3D milled dies uses 3D software Fusion 360 (Autodesk Fusion 360 Professional, Autodesk, San Francisco, CA, USA), making it more \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Maximum Load**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Elastic Modulus**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Yield Strength**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Compressive**} \\  & & & **(N)** & & **(MPa)** & & **(Offset 0.2\%) (MPa)** & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Strength**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & **Fracture** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Count**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} \\  & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline A & 6 & 2 & 1378.65 & 56.36 & 543.74 & 181.68 & 49.31 & 59.98 & 168.95 & 6.91 \\ \hline  & 8 & 1 & 1509.82 &. & 536.94 &. & 122.54 &. & 185.03 &. \\ \hline  & 11 & 3 & 918.70 & 206.29 & 548.47 & 35.82 & 86.59 & 25.45 & 112.59 & 25.28 \\ \hline  & 12 & 4 & 1186.52 & 215.08 & 526.60 & 41.82 & 115.11 & 11.31 & 145.41 & 26.36 \\ \hline B & 4 & 1 & 1241.98 &. & 448.84 &. & 93.25 &. & 120.58 &. \\ \hline  & 10 & 1 & 1606.83 &. & 462.14 &. & 82.46 &. & 156.00 &. \\ \hline  & 12 & 8 & 1093.41 & 115.64 & 451.00 & 52.32 & 84.02 & 7.26 & 106.16 & 11.23 \\ \hline C & 9 & 1 & 961.81 &. & 368.82 &. & 71.59 &. & 72.15 &. \\ \hline  & 10 & 1 & 849.49 &. & 447.29 &. & 62.87 &. & 63.73 &. \\ \hline  & 11 & 2 & 1016.78 & 76.13 & 360.07 & 123.99 & 60.72 & 10.35 & 76.28 & 5.71 \\ \hline  & 12 & 6 & 1294.17 & 381.23 & 446.95 & 30.40 & 70.30 & 8.05 & 97.09 & 28.60 \\ \hline D & 1 & 5 & 779.57 & 113.26 & 368.12 & 66.82 & 40.19 & 21.78 & 51.70 & 7.51 \\ \hline  & 11 & 2 & 783.20 & 147.54 & 308.17 & 128.34 & 23.76 & 28.93 & 51.94 & 9.79 \\ \hline  & 12 & 3 & 1194.35 & 121.81 & 379.34 & 91.69 & 43.77 & 30.99 & 79.20 & 8.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The distribution of fractures is in counts according to the location of the specimens. accurate than other methods of fabricating metal dies to specified dimensions.