This in vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy of maxilla and mandible full-arch scans from an intraoral scanner via one scan path with six different head movements. Standard maxilla and mandible models via holder were set in a dental chair to simulate position and posture. The reference models’ standard tessellation language (STL) files were formatted via desktop scanner, and operative models’ files were obtained via IOS TRIOS 3 Pod as superimposed by Exocad CAD software. The same scan path with six head movements (Linear, Circle, Wave, 8-figure, S-figure, and A-P) were designed to scan 10 times per jaw, and a total of 120 scan files were then compared with reference files. The data were recorded and deviations of both occlusal and B-L sides were compared, with statistical analysis being performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc comparisons with Tukey test. The trueness of optical impression for full-arch via one path with six head movements differed from maxilla and mandible and depended on the different movements (p < 0.05). In the same path, peak deviation was found at the turning points for left central incisor, left first premolar, left second molar, and right second molar in maxilla, and for right first premolar, second molar, and left second molar in the mandible. The 8-figure movement showed the highest deviation (0.128 ± 0.086 mm) in the maxilla and (0.105 ± 0.069 mm) in the mandible. The Linear movement presented the lowest deviation (0.096 ± 0.07 mm) in the maxilla while the Circle movement presented the lowest deviation (0.073 ± 0.041 mm) in the mandible, with the 8-figure movement showing the worst precision among six movements. In the maxilla, the S- and 8-figure movements were not recommended, while the Linear and Circle movements showed high trueness. In the mandible, the 8-figure movement was not recommended, while the other five presented similar lower deviations.
Conventional Impression vs Optical Impression: The Battle has already Begun