Venditti A^1* and Filippelli C²

¹DDS, PsG, MsS, Private Practice, Italy
²DS, University of Parma, Italy

*Corresponding Author: Venditti A, DDS, PsG, MsS, Private Practice, Italy.

Received: July 02, 2026; Published: August 12, 2026

Background: Accurate implant position transfer is essential to achieve passive fit in complete-arch implant-supported rehabilitations. While intraoral scanners (IOS) are widely used, their accuracy in full-arch scenarios remains controversial. Photogrammetry has emerged as a potential alternative; however, comparative evidence is limited.

Methods: A structured narrative review was conducted following PRISMA principles. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library using predefined keywords. Studies published in the last 5 years evaluating accuracy (trueness and/or precision) of photogrammetry and/or IOS in full-arch implant configurations were included. After screening 26 records, 2 studies met the inclusion criteria and were qualitatively analyzed.

Results: Both included studies consistently showed higher accuracy of photogrammetry compared with intraoral scanners. IOS demonstrated deviations of approximately 20–40 mm, with accuracy decreasing as scan span increased due to cumulative stitching errors. In contrast, photogrammetry systems provided more stable measurements with lower deviations. Laboratory scanners, when used as reference, showed the highest accuracy overall.

Conclusions: Photogrammetry appears to provide greater accuracy than intraoral scanning in complete-arch implant-supported rehabilitations. The reliability of IOS in full-arch implant cases remains limited, particularly in the absence of anatomical reference points. Further clinical studies are required to confirm these findings and support their clinical translation.

Keywords: Photogrammetry; Intraoral Scanners (IOS)

References

1. Jaafar A., et al. “Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review”. International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants 25 (2010): 506-515.
2. Cehreli MC and Akça K. “Impression techniques and misfitinduced strains on implant-supported superstructures: an in vitro study”. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 26 (2006): 379-385.
3. Alfaraj A., et al. “Comparative analyses of accuracy between digital and conventional impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses-A systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Prosthodontics3 (2026): 252-274.
4. Abuduwaili K., et al. “Comparison of photogrammetric imaging, intraoral scanning and conventional impression accuracy of full-arch dental implant rehabilitation: an in vitro study”. BMC Oral Health1 (2025): 753.
5. Betita T and Rusthoven DJ. “The Digital Full-Arch Solution Plus Photogrammetry for Guided Patient Success in All-On-X Cases”. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America2 (2025): 213-233.
6. Papaspyridakos P., et al. “Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Prosthodontics 29 (2020): 660-678.
7. Albanchez-González MI., et al. “Accuracy of digital dental implants impression taking with intraoral scanners compared with conventional impression techniques: a systematic review of in vitro studies”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (2022): 2026-2026.
8. Yuan Z., et al. “Comparing the accuracy of three digital impression techniques with conventional impression technique for implant-supported fixed full-arch restorations: A prospective clinical study”. American Journal of Dentistry1 (2026): 25-30.
9. Pinto RJ., et al. “Accuracy of different digital acquisition methods in complete arch implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry1 (2024): 172-177.
10. Daniel W., et al. “Group 5 ITI con-sensus report: digital technologies”. Clinical Oral Implants Research16 (2018): 436-442.
11. Amin S., et al. “Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 28 (2016): 1360-1367.
12. Miguel G., et al. “Influence of the surface humidity, implant angulation, and interimplant distance on the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans”. Journal of Dentistry (2022): 127.
13. Huang R., et al. “Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 31 (2020): 625-633.
14. Rutknas V., et al. “EPA consensus project paper: accuracy of photogrammetry devices, intraoral scanners, and conventional techniques for the full-arch implant impressions: a systematic review”. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry (2023).
15. Wee AG., et al. “Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature”. International Journal of Prosthodontics 12 (1999): 167-178.
16. Kailibinuer Abuduwaili., et al. “Comparison of photogrammetric imaging, intraoral scanning and conventional impression accuracy of full-arch dental implant rehabilitation: an in vitro study”. BMC Oral Health 25 (2025): 753.
17. Pozzi A., et al. “Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: an in vivo prospective comparative study”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 34 (2023): 1106-1117.
18. Molinero-Mourelle P., et al. “Photogrammetric and intraoral digital impression technique for the rehabilitation of multiple unfavorably positioned dental implants: a clinical report”. Journal of Oral Implantology 45 (2019): 398-402.
19. Alessandro S and Miguel G. “Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 128 (2021): 1009-1016.

Citation

Citation: Venditti A and Filippelli C. “Accuracy of Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: A Structured Narrative Review". Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 10.9 (2026): 10-16.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2026 Venditti A and Filippelli C. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.