## 3 Results  
The trueness and precision values of the in vitro case are presented in Table 1 and the trueness and precision values of the in vivo case are presented in Table 2.  
Regarding the in vitro case, the analysis indicated that there is a statistically significant difference between the trueness groups (\(p<0.001\)). The \"SINGLESCAN\" group displayed the best trueness, followed by the \"DELETE&RESCAN\" group with a 9.5 \(\upmu\)m decrease in trueness, whereas the \"RESCAN\" group was the least true with a further 7 \(\upmu\)m decrease (Figure 7a). The overall trueness differences between the analyzed groups were no larger than 17 \(\upmu\)m.  
The statistical analysis of the nonparametric values indicated that there is a statistically significant difference between the precision groups (\(p<0.0001\)). The \"DELETE&RESCAN\" group displayed the best precision, followed by the \"RESCAN\" group with a 3.4 \(\upmu\)m decrease, and the \"SINGLESCAN\" group was the least precise (Figure 7b). There was a 20 \(\upmu\)m precision difference between the best performing group and the least precise one.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**In Vitro**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Trueness**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Precision**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Median** & **IQR** \\ \hline SINGLESCAN & 148.14 \(\upmu\)m & 3.28 \(\upmu\)m & 77 \(\upmu\)m & 15 \(\upmu\)m \\ RESCAN & 164.73 \(\upmu\)m & 9.35 \(\upmu\)m & 60 \(\upmu\)m & 8.8 \(\upmu\)m \\ DELETE\&RESCAN & 157.66 \(\upmu\)m & 9.93 \(\upmu\)m & 56.6 \(\upmu\)m & 10.6 \(\upmu\)m \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation (SD) of the trueness values alongside median and interquartile range (IQR) of the precision values for the in vitro case.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**In Vivo**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Trueness**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Precision**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Median** & **IQR** \\ \hline SINGLESCAN & 126.64 \(\upmu\)m & 5.52 \(\upmu\)m & 65.2 \(\upmu\)m & 36.9 \(\upmu\)m \\ RESCAN & 137.74 \(\upmu\)m & 9.21 \(\upmu\)m & 30.7 \(\upmu\)m & 7.8 \(\upmu\)m \\ DELETE\&RESCAN & 128.40 \(\upmu\)m & 6.99 \(\upmu\)m & 46.6 \(\upmu\)m & 24.8 \(\upmu\)m \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Mean and standard deviation (SD) of the trueness values alongside median and interquartile range (IQR) of the precision values for the in vivo case.  
Figure 6: Color coded map of the inspected area of interest, presenting outward displacement (red) and inward displacement (blue) in mm.  
Regarding the in vivo case values, the analysis indicated that there is a statistically significant difference between the trueness groups (_p_ < 0.001). The \"SINGLESCAN\" group displayed the best trueness, followed by the \"DELETE&RESCAN\" group with a 1.8 \(\upmu\)m decrease in trueness, and the \"RESCAN\" group was the least true with a further 9.3 \(\upmu\)m decrease (Figure 8a). The overall trueness differences between the analyzed groups were no larger than 11 \(\upmu\)m.  
The analysis of the nonparametric data indicated that there is a statistically significant difference between the precision groups (_p_ < 0.0001). The \"RESCAN\" group displayed the best precision, followed by the \"DELETE&RESCAN\" group with a 16 \(\upmu\)m decrease, and the \"SINGLESCAN\" group was the least precise (Figure 8b).