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

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons (independent-samples t tests) of the surface roughness and waviness measurements after use of different light-guide tips

Variables	Model A (CNC + Regular light-guide)		Model B (CNC + push and light tool®)		Model A vs Model B		95% CI of the difference		Model C (FNC + Regular light-guide)		Model D (FNC + push and light tool®)		Model C 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	1.32	0.18	2.45	0.000	− 2.57	− 1.19	5.20	0.63	1.44	0.19	3.76	0.000	− 3.77	− 0.89
RSm (µm)	0.23	0.06	0.16	0.15	0.06	0.122	− 0.017	0.114	0.29	0.19	0.30	0.11	0.012	0.815	− 0.091	0.115
Rt (µm)	30.83	1.48	9.75	1.37	21.07	0.000	20.16	21.99	34.29	1.61	10.22	0.38	24.07	0.000	− 24.826	− 23.320
Wa (µm)	6.81	0.61	3.92	1.14	2.89	0.000	2.30	3.47	9.45	1.36	7.78	1.11	1.67	0.000	− 2.4738	− 0.8742
Wt (µm)	37.87	1.58	37.87	2.16	14.74	0.000	13.52	15.95	48.82	1.29	28.03	0.75	20.79	0.000	− 21.468	− 20.114

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