## 3 Results
For a submersion of 6.0 mm, the RMS values at the positions of the lateral incisor, first premolar, and first molar were 122.5 \(\pm\) 4.1 \(\upmu\)m, 112.5 \(\pm\) 14.0 \(\upmu\)m, and 118.4 \(\pm\) 8.7 \(\upmu\)m, respectively, indicating sharp increases in the deviation. For the CS3600 scanner, the deviation increased significantly to 93.6 \(\pm\) 15.0 \(\upmu\)m when the implant was submerged 4.5 mm at the position of the lateral incisor. For a submersion of 6.0 mm, the RMS values at the positions of the lateral incisor, first premolar, and first molar were significantly higher, at 107.0 \(\pm\) 20.4 \(\upmu\)m, 65.5 \(\pm\) 37.9 \(\upmu\)m, and 77.3 \(\pm\) 35.6 \(\upmu\)m, respectively. Figure 7: Trueness according to tooth position: (**A**) lateral incisor; (**B**) first premolar and (**C**) first molar. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences within each scanner group. Data are mean and standard deviation values. Three-way ANOVA revealed significant main effects on precision of implant level (\(F\) = 37.463, \(p\) < 0.001), scanner (\(F\) = 711.301, \(p\) < 0.001), and tooth position (\(F\) = 29.671, \(p\) < 0.001); significant two-way interaction effects between scanner and implant level (\(F\) = 14.842, \(p\) < 0.001), tooth position and implant level (6.035, \(p\) < 0.001), and scanner and tooth position (\(F\) = 3.809, \(p\) < 0.001); and a significant three-way interaction between scanner, tooth position, and implant level (\(F\) = 3.660, \(p\) < 0.001). Three-way ANOVA was performed to check the accuracy of reproducibility of the implant position according to changes in the exposed length of the ISB, scanner type, and tooth position (Figure 8). The RMS values for precision did not differ significantly for implants at the normal bone level and for a submersion of 1.5 mm (21.8 \(\pm\) 17.5 \(\upmu\)m and 22.1 \(\pm\) 18.2 \(\upmu\)m, respectively). When the ISB was submerged 3.0 mm, 4.5 mm, and 6.0 mm, the deviation increased significantly to 26.3 \(\pm\) 21.9 \(\upmu\)m, 31.1 \(\pm\) 27.9 \(\upmu\)m, and 44.0 \(\pm\) 39.2 \(\upmu\)m, respectively, indicating worsening accuracy. The precision varied with the type of scanner, being highest for T500-REF data (\(5.1\pm 3.4\)\(\upmu\)m), followed by the T500 (8.4 \(\pm\) 8.0 \(\upmu\)m), TRIOS 3 (32.0 \(\pm\) 22.5 \(\upmu\)m), i500 (39.0 \(\pm\) 27.3 \(\upmu\)m), and CS3600 (47.5 \(\pm\) 28.8 \(\upmu\)m) scanners. The RMS value did not differ significantly between the first premolar (27.8 \(\pm\) 25.9 \(\upmu\)m) and the first molar (25.6 \(\pm\) 25.7 \(\upmu\)m), but was higher for the lateral incisor (33.7 \(\pm\) 29.9 \(\upmu\)m), indicating relatively low positional reproducibility accuracy. The average standard deviation of the RMS value was calculated to analyze the precision of the scanner measurements according to changes in the exposed length of the ISB (Table S2, Figure 9). The RMS value for precision tended to be low in all groups when the implant depth was at the normal bone level. In the case of T500-REF data, the deviation was low in all groups, indicating the highest precision. In the case of the T500 control group, when the implant was submerged 4.5 mm and 6.0 mm at the positions of the lateral incisor and first premolar, the RMS value increased significantly to 19.8 \(\pm\) 12.8 \(\upmu\)m and 15.4 \(\pm\) 7.1 \(\upmu\)m, respectively, indicating that the precision decreased. With the TRIOS 3 scanner, when the implant depth was 6.0 mm at the positions of the lateral incisor, first premolar, and first molar, the RMS values increased significantly to 62.0 \(\pm\) 36.8 \(\upmu\)m, 46.6 \(\pm\) 25.6 \(\upmu\)m, and 38.8 \(\pm\) 35.2 \(\upmu\)m, respectively. In the case of the i500 scanner, the RMS value increased significantly to 39.4 \(\pm\) 21.0 \(\upmu\)m and 36.4 \(\pm\) 20.7 \(\upmu\)m when the ISB was submerged 3.0 mm at the positions of the first premolar and first molar, respectively.