## 3 Results
### Comparison of Accuracy with the Increase in Anterior Interdental Space
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**SectionsModels** & **Ideal** & **Mild** & **Moderate** & **Severe** \\ \hline
**Ant** & 45.32 (5.66)\({}^{\text{a,A}}\) & 51.67 (5.49)\({}^{\text{ab,A}}\) & 60.50 (10.65)\({}^{\text{c,A}}\) & 57.29 (7.74)\({}^{\text{b,A}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{\text{*}}\) \\ LP & 49.93 (19.68)\({}^{\text{a,A}}\) & 55.24 (11.35)\({}^{\text{ab,A}}\) & 73.78 (26.62)\({}^{\text{c,A}}\) & 106.49 (32.56)\({}^{\text{b,B}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{\text{*}}\) \\ RP & 49.23 (16.65)\({}^{\text{a,A}}\) & 55.19 (12.36)\({}^{\text{a,A}}\) & 81.80 (31.25)\({}^{\text{b,A}}\) & 93.77 (27.21)\({}^{\text{b,A}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{\text{*}}\) \\ LM & 98.13 (64.84)\({}^{\text{a,B}}\) & 116.49 (50.64)\({}^{\text{a,B}}\) & 136.98 (71.75)\({}^{\text{a,B}}\) & 205.36 (66.05)\({}^{\text{b,C}}\) & 0.004 \({}^{\text{*}}\) \\ RM & 93.73 (67.48)\({}^{\text{a,B}}\) & 113.25 (52.73)\({}^{\text{a,B}}\) & 151.27 (95.42)\({}^{\text{a,B}}\) & 188.03 (57.88)\({}^{\text{b,C}}\) & 0.024 \({}^{\text{*}}\) \\ Total & 67.74 (33.13)\({}^{\text{a,AB}}\) & 67.07 (23.93)\({}^{\text{a,B}}\) & 99.43 (43.61)\({}^{\text{a,B}}\) & 119.65 (32.15)\({}^{\text{b,B}}\) & 0.007 \({}^{\text{*}}\) \\ \(p\)-value \({}^{\iint}\) & 0.015 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & 0.002 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{\text{*}}\) & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Values from all sections of the four models (Ideal, Mild, Moderate, Severe) are statistically different. \({}^{\int}\)\(p\)-values for models after one-way ANOVA. \({}^{\text{*}}\) Indicates that the values are statistically different among models (\({}^{\text{*}}\)\(p<0.05\)). (Post-hoc (Duncan): a \(<\) b \(<\) c) Values from the sectioned arches (Ant, LP, RP, LM, RM, Total) of all models are statistically different. \({}^{\iint}\)\(p\)-values for sections after one-way ANOVA. \({}^{\text{*}}\) Indicates that the values are statistically different among sections (\({}^{\text{*}}\)\(p<0.05\)). (Post-hoc (Duncan): a \(<\) b \(<\) c) SD: standard deviation. Ideal: ideal dental arch; Mild: 1 mm spacing; Moderate: 3 mm spacing; and Severe: 5 mm spacing. For the sectioned arch: Ant is the anterior teeth; LP is the left premolars; RP is the right premolars; LM is the left molars; RM is the right molars; Total is the entire arch.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of deviations in the scanned images of the four models using iTero® (unit: \(\upmu\)m). Figure 7: Representation of deviations when using iTero®. The color map was set from 0 \(\upmu\)m to +200 \(\upmu\)m. Ideal: ideal dental arch; Mild: 1 mm spacing; Moderate: 3 mm spacing; and Severe: 5 mm spacing. Red represents areas of large deviations; Blue represents areas of small deviations. The deviation of Ideal is the smallest; that of Mild is larger than Ideal; that of Moderate is larger than Mild; and that of Severe is the largest, especially in the posterior area. A one-way ANOVA was also performed on the deviations of scanned images from Trios(r); the results are shown in Table 3. In sectioned arches, differences in deviations were statistically significant in Ant, RP, and Total, depending on the type of model. However, the data were statistically insignificant in other sections of the arch. The highest deviation of the full arch was 249 \(\upmu\)m in the Ideal model, 324 \(\upmu\)m in the Mild model, 362 \(\upmu\)m in the Moderate model, and 589 \(\upmu\)m in the Severe model. Likewise with Trios(r), a one-way ANOVA was performed on the deviations of scanned individual sections of the arch (LM, LP, Ant, RP, RM, Total). The results showed a greater deviation in the molar area compared to incisors, and premolars in all models. Additionally, deviations in the premolar and molar areas were greater on the right side than on the left side. These calculations were statistically significant in the Ideal, Moderate, and Severe models, but statistically insignificant in the Mild model. The LM and RM sections showed larger deviations, with the largest deviation in RM.