METHODS: A stone dental cast was scanned with a laboratory scanner as a reference, with 11 scans performed by an IOS, SMP_2A, and SMP_3A. In 3D analysis, trueness and precision were evaluated through superimposition with the reference scan and within each group, respectively, using the best-fit algorithm of Geomagic Wrap software (3D Systems, Inc., Rock Hill, SC). Trueness in linear discrepancy was assessed by comparing the occlusal-cervical and mesiodistal dimensions of reference teeth (canine, premolar, and molar), intercanine width, and intermolar width on the digital casts to measurements of the stone cast, while precision was measured using the coefficient of variance. Differences between groups were analyzed using the Friedman test, followed by the Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc test with a significance level set at 0.05.

RESULTS: IOS exhibited significantly lower trueness than SMP_2A (p = 0.003) with significantly greater width discrepancies on canines (p = 0.001) and molars (p < 0.001). Discrepancy patterns differed among the three scanning methods. The IOS showed greater discrepancies on the occlusal surfaces of posterior teeth. While SMP_3A demonstrated higher variation on the palatal surfaces and interproximal areas of posterior teeth. For precision, SMP_3A (p = 0.028) and SMP_2A (p = 0.003) showed a significantly lower precision in 3D analysis, but a comparable reproducibility in linear measurement to IOS.