Objective: The aim of this study was to measure the trueness of post space impression by 2 digital impression techniques: Impression Scanning (IS) and Model Scanning (MS) with cervical diameter 3 millimeters. Materials and methods: Fourteen freshly extracted single rooted lower second premolars were endodontically treated using Wave-One* single file technique. Then mounted in acrylic blocks parallel to long access using a dental surveyor 2mm above the CEJ, drills in sequence 1.4 and 1.6 millimeter then diamond stone with 3 millimeter diameter were used for teeth preparation with a standardized depth of 8mm. Teeth were scanned by reference scanner InEos5 X5. The 14 teeth were impressioned using polyether impression material, scanned using 3shape desktop scanner E2. Then the impressions were poured to produce stone models furtherly scanned using same scanner. Then all STL files were compared to the reference scanner using Geomagic control X software. Results: Samples where models were scanned had lower trueness values than impression scanning. Conclusions: Impression scanning for post space are recommended than model scanning.