Objective: To compare the trueness of incisal guidance of implant-supported single crowns designed by patient-specific motion (PSM) with that designed by average-value virtual articulator (AVA). Methods: The study had recruited 12 participants with complete dentition and stable incisal guidance. An intraoral scanner was used to scan digital casts and record two types of patient-specific motion (data only including protrusive movement, and data including protrusive movement and lateral protrusive movement). The lingual surfaces of the maxillary incisors which guided the protrusive movement was selected and elevated to create a reference cast. A maxillary central incisor of original casts was vir-tually extracted and implanted to generate a working cast. The Dental system software program was used to design implant-supported single crowns with the anatomical coping design method. The incisal guidance was designed by different methods. The incisal guidance in control group was designed by the average-value virtual articulator. The incisal guidance in experiment groups was designed by the patient-specific motion only including protrusive movement (PSM1) and with the patient-specific motion including protrusive movement and lateral protrusive movement (PSM2). The incisal guidance of prosthesis designed by these 3 methods were compared with the original incisal guidance in Geomagic Control 2015 (3DSystem, America). The measurements included: Average of positive values, ratio of positive area and maximum value reflecting supra-occlusion; average of negative values, ratio of negative area and minimum value reflecting over-correction; and root mean square reflecting overall deviation. Results: Statistical data were collected using the median (interquartile range) method. The average of positive values, ratio of positive area and average of negative values of the PSM2 group were smaller than those of the control group [8.0 (18.8) μm vs. 37.5 (47.5) μm; 0 vs. 7.2% (38.1%); -109.0 (63.8) μm vs.-66.5 (64.5) μm], and the ratio of negative area of PSM2 group was larger than those of the control group [52.9% (47.8%) vs. 17.3% (45.3%)], with significant differences (P all < 0.05). The ratio of positive area [0.1% (7.0%)] and average of negative values [-97.0 (61.5) μm] of PSM1 group, were smaller than those of the control group, and the ratio of negative area [40.7% (39.2%)] of the PSM1 group was larger than that of the control group, with significant differences (P < 0.05). The average of positive values [20.0 (42.0) μm] and ratio of positive area of PSM1 group was larger than that of the PSM2 group with significant differences (P < 0.05). Conclusion: To establish the incisor guidance of implant-supported single crowns, compared with the average-value virtual articulator and the patient-specific motion only including protrusive movement, the patient-specific motion including protrusive movement and lateral protrusive movement is more conducive to reducing the protrusive interference of prosthesis and improving the occlusal fit.