Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of trueness and precision among groups tested

From: Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study

 

PG VS CNV

PG VS IOS

IOS VS CNV

Trueness

0.033*

< 0.001*

0.033*

Precision

< 0.001*

< 0.001*

0.002*

  1. PG photogrammetry, IOS intraoral scanner, CNV conventional impression
  2. *Indicated significant differences between groups (P < 0.05)