The presence of a multibracket appliance has different effects on the results of an impression and consequently has a decisive influence on the quality of orthodontic treatment. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the transfer accuracy of intraoral scanners in the presence of a fixed multibracket appliance. A comparison was made between conventional alginate impression taking followed by model fabri-cation with superhard stone type IV and digital model fabrication using five intraoral scanners (CS 3600, Carestream Dental, Rochester, NY, USA; Primescan, Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany; Trios 4, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark; i500, Medit, Seoul, South Korea; Emerald S, Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). Four reference points in the form of metal spheres were placed on the mandibular model (made specifically for the tests performed) before alginate impressions were taken and digitized by the intraoral scanners. The rigid metal positioning plate, in which the spheres were magnetically secured, allowed reproducible placement of the spheres and also served as a result-securing reference for the sphere positions. In the first study cycle, the mandibular model was provided without brackets, in the second and third study cycles with metal brackets and in the fourth and fifth study cycles with ceramic brackets and digitized in each case. In addition, study cycles three and five were performed with a metal wire attached to the brackets. The individual steps of impression taking were recorded in time, logged in tabular form and compared in the following. In total, 300 (n = 12x5x5) digitized models were analyzed with 3D software (GOM Inspect, Braunschweig, Germany) and 60 (n = 12x5) plaster models were evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine after five study cycles. As a result, the measured linear distances and angles between the sphere centers could be compared with reference data. The result of the evaluation and the statistical analysis of the distance and angle measurements and the time recording show significant differences (p < 0.05) within the study cycles between the different impression methods. The intraoral scanners showed higher transfer accuracy in the presence of a multibracket appliance without as well as with wire compared to the conventional workflow of alginate impression taking and conventional fabrication of plaster models. ? Based on this in vitro study, intraoral scanners for full-arch impression taking in the presence of a multibracket appliance without as well as with a metallic wire can be recommended for everyday orthodontic use. Without the presence of a multibracket appliance in situ, higher accuracy can be achieved with the conventional method – alginate impression taking and model fabrication.