## 4 Results
### Virtual Dental Model Accuracy Assessment Results  
Videos and point recordings of the superimposed virtual dental model into physical were recorded for 20 s in each case, with three positions for each setting. In total, six videos with corresponding point recording cases were acquired. Camera (\(\Delta_{\text{F}}\)) and marker (\(\Delta_{\text{Q}}\)) point distance deviations from their respective coordinate averages are shown in Table 1.  
Theoretically, no camera movement should be recorded (mean values \(\approx\) 0) in a stationary setting. However, gathered data showed mean distance values in the range of 0.14 mm and 0.2 mm. Camera movement in the dynamic setting was in the range of 0.88 mm and 4.74 mm. The marker point in the left position showed significantly higher mean and standard deviation values in stationary (0.22 (0.16) mm) and dynamic (1.19 (1.0) mm) settings compared with the other positions. One of the lowest distance mean values can be observed in the right position for both settings: stationary (0.09 mm) and dynamic (0.36 mm). The minimal average difference between stationary and dynamic settings can reach up to 0.22 mm (front position). Trueness measurements (\(\Delta_{\text{V}}\)) acquired from video data are presented in Table 2.  
Due to possible calibration inaccuracies, the mean values of respected point locations can reach up to 8.39 mm in dynamic and 5.53 mm in stationary settings. When scenarios are compared, dynamic SD values are significantly higher (<1.6 mm) than stationary (<0.04 mm). In the stationary setting, SD values do not exceed 0.03 mm in all positions. The dynamic setting frontal position's SD values are shown to be the lowest of all three, ranging between 0.56 mm and 0.61 mm. The highest SD values in the dynamic setting can be seen in the left position (1.46-1.6 mm). The highest contrast between stationary and dynamic settings is showcased by their SD values in any position and location. Nevertheless, in the right position, dynamic mean values are observed to be smaller than in the stationary position. In both precision (\(\Delta_{\text{Q}}\)) and Trueness (\(\Delta_{\text{V,1...}A}\)) cases, Kruskal-Wallis tests displayed a significant difference (\(p<0.001\)) between the data sets in all proposed comparisons. Furthermore, only one post-hoc test comparing the \(\Delta_{\text{Q}}\) right and front data sets out of all did not show a statistically significant difference (\(p=0.18\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Front**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Right**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Left**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Camera** & **Marker** & **Camera** & **Marker** & **Camera** & **Marker** \\  & **(\(\Delta_{\text{F}}\))** & **Point (\(\Delta_{\text{Q}}\))** & **(\(\Delta_{\text{F}}\))** & **Point (\(\Delta_{\text{Q}}\))** & **(\(\Delta_{\text{F}}\))** & **Point (\(\Delta_{\text{Q}}\))** \\ \hline Stationary & 0.20 (0.08) & 0.15 (0.07) & 0.14 (0.05) & 0.09 (0.03) & 0.16 (0.07) & 0.22 (0.16) \\ \hline Dynamic & 4.74 (3.22) & 0.37 (0.19) & 0.88 (0.42) & 0.36 (0.21) & 2.83 (4.39) & 1.19 (1.00) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Precision data (mean and \(\pm\)SD, mm) for camera and marker points at different positions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Setting** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Stationary**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dynamic**} \\ \hline
**Position** & **Front** & **Left** & **Right** & **Front** & **Left** & **Right** \\ \hline \(\Delta_{\text{V1}}\) & 3.28 (0.01) & 4.25 (0.02) & 5.53 (0.03) & 2.86 (0.61) & 8.39 (1.46) & 3.65 (0.83) \\ \(\Delta_{\text{V2}}\) & 2.90 (0.01) & 3.29 (0.04) & 5.11 (0.03) & 3.61 (0.63) & 7.14 (1.57) & 3.47 (1.04) \\ \(\Delta_{\text{V3}}\) & 2.87 (0.03) & 1.01 (0.02) & 4.58 (0.02) & 2.70 (0.58) & 7.40 (1.60) & 4.41 (0.89) \\ \(\Delta_{\text{V4}}\) & 1.49 (0.02) & 0.72 (0.02) & 5.51 (0.01) & 2.60 (0.56) & 6.66 (1.51) & 4.39 (0.83) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}