## 3 Results  
The evaluation of precision was based on 405 digital measurements obtained with three scanners: 3 Shape Trios 3, Mediti i500, and PIC Dental photogrammetry. The minimum, maximum, and RMS parameters were analyzed and compared with respect to the position of the implants (3 Shape Trios 3: Tr6_A, Tr4_B, and Tr4_C; Mediti i500: Md6_A, Md4_B, and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Scanner** & **Number and Position of Implants** & **Group** \\ \hline Scanner IO & 6 (CCI A) & Tr6\_A \\
3 Shape Trios 3 & 4 (CCI B) & Tr4\_B \\  & 4 (CCI C) & Tr4\_C \\ \hline Scanner IO & 6 (CCI A) & Md6\_A \\ Medit i500 & 4 (CCI B) & Md4\_B \\  & 4 (CCI C) & Md4\_C \\ \hline Photogrammetry PIC Dental & 6 (CCI A) & Pi6\_A \\
2 Photogrammetry PIC Dental & 4 (CCI B) & Pi4\_B \\
2 (CCI C) & & Pi4\_C \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* CCI A, option with 6 implants, 2 implants in the position of the lateral incisors, 2 anterior to the mental foramen, and 2 in the region of the first molars; CCI B, option with 4 implants, 2 implants in the canine position and 2 implants in the first molar region; CCI C, option with 4 implants, 2 implants in the position of the lateral incisors and 2 implants anterior to the mental foramen; Tr6_A, digital impression with 3 Shape Trios 3 scanner and CCI distribution option B; CTI distribution option A; Tr4_C, digital impression with 3 Shape Trios 3 scanner and CCI distribution option C; Md6_A, digital impression with Medit i500 scanner and CCI distribution option A; Md4_B, digital impression with Medit i500 scanner and CCI distribution option B; Md4_C, digital impression with Medit i500 scanner and CCI distribution option C; Pi6_A, digital impression with PIC Dental scanner and CCI distribution option B; Pi4_C, digital impression with PIC Dental scanner and CCI distribution option C.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Definition of the study groups. Figure 4: Representative image of color maps reflecting discrepancies from best-fit superimposition between each evaluated distribution. Color scale ranges from +1000 (red) to \(-\)1000 \(\upmu\)m (blue), and tolerance values are between +30 and \(-\)30 \(\upmu\)m (green). (**a**) CCI A; (**b**) CCI B; and (**c**) CCI C.  
As shown in Table 2, statistically significant differences (\(p<0.001\)) were observed among the various implant distributions in both IO scanners studied; however, no significant differences (\(p=0.358\)) were detected between CCI A and CCI B with 3 Shape Trios 3. For both scanners, the best results were obtained with the CCI C implant distribution (5.96 \(\upmu\)m--3 Shape; 7.36 \(\upmu\)m--Medit). For PIC Dental photogrammetry, no significant differences (\(p=0.075\)) were found among the three implant distributions assessed. When comparing the various implant distributions (Table 3), the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences (\(p<0.001\)) among the three distributions assessed. The CCI C distribution showed the best precision (8.29 \(\upmu\)m) followed by CCI A and CCI B (11.77 \(\upmu\)m and 16.03 \(\upmu\)m, respectively). Kruskal-Wallis tests were also conducted to assess the precision among the devices studied (Table 4). High precision was observed for all the devices analyzed, with no significant differences found (\(p=0.097\)).