AbstractThe aim of this study was to compare the trueness of complete- and partial-arch impressions obtained using conventional impression materials and intraoral scanners in vivo. Full-arch impressions were taken using polyether and polyvinylsiloxane. Gypsum casts were digitized using a laboratory scanner (IM, AF). Casts obtained from polyether impressions were also scanned using an industrial blue light scanner to construct 3D reference models. Intraoral scanning was performed using CEREC Omnicam (CO) and Trios 3 (TR). Surface matching software (Atos Professional) enabled to determine the mean deviations (mean distances) from the reference casts. Statistically significant discrepancies were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The mean distance for trueness ranged from 0.005 mm (TR) to 0.023 mm (IM) for the full arch, from 0.001 mm (CO) to 0.068 mm (IM) for the anterior segment, and from 0.019 mm (AF) to 0.042 mm (IM) for the posterior segment. Comparing the anterior vs. the posterior segment, significantly less deviations were observed for anterior with CO (p < 0.001) and TR (p < 0.001). Full-arch comparisons revealed significant differences between AF vs. IM (p = 0.014), IM vs. CO (p = 0.002), and IM vs. TR (p = 0.001). Full-arch trueness was comparable when using Affinis and the two intraoral scanners CEREC Omnicam and Trios 3. The digital impression devices yielded higher local deviations within the complete arch. Digital impressions of the complete arch are a suitable and reliable alternative to conventional impressions. However, they should be used with caution in the posterior region.Trial registration: Registration number at the German Clinical Trial Register (04.02.2022): DRKS00027988 (https://trialsearch.who.int/).