Light-curing process for clear aligners’ attachment reproduction: comparison between two nanocomposites cured by the auxiliary of a new tool

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons (independent-samples t tests) of the surface roughness and waviness measurements between CNC and FNC samples undergone the same curing process

Variables	Model A (CNC + Regular light-guide)		Model C (FNC + Regular light-guide)		Model A vs Model C		95% CI of the difference		Model B (CNC + push and light tool®)		Model D (FNC + push and light tool®)		Model B vs Model D		95% CI of the difference
Variables	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Diff	Pvalue	Lower	Upper	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Diff	Pvalue	Lower	Upper
Ra (µm)	3.77	0.95	5.20	0.63	− 1.41	0.000	0.894	1.933	1.32	0.18	1.44	0.19	− 0.13	0.028	0.0145	0.2435
RSm (µm)	0.23	0.06	0.29	0.19	− 0.06	0.185	− 0.156	0.030	0.16	0.16	0.30	0.11	− 0.13	0.004	0.046	0.231
Rt (µm)	30.83	1.48	34.29	1.61	− 3.46	0.000	− 4.461	− 2.247	9.75	1.37	10.22	0.38	− 0.47	0.473	− 0.172	1.118
Wa (µm)	6.81	0.61	9.45	1.39	− 2.63	0.000	− 3.316	− 1.958	3.92	1.14	7.78	1.11	− 3.85	0.000	3.132	4.577
Wt (µm)	37.87	2.16	48.82	1.29	− 10.95	0.000	− 12.092	− 9.811	23.13	1.58	28.03	0.75	− 4.90	0.000	4.104	5.698

CNC conventional nanocomposite, FNC flowable nanocomposite, Ra arithmetic mean roughness value, RSm mean peak width, Rt total height of the roughness profile, Wa arithmetic mean waviness value, Wt total height of the waviness profile, µm micrometer, SD Standard Deviations, Diff. Differences, CI Confidence interval

ISSN: 1472-6831