To compare the trueness of extraoral photogrammetry (EPG), intraoral photogrammetry (IPG), and four intraoral scanners (IOSs) in capturing a completely edentulous model with six implant analogs.

A type IV plaster master model containing six implant analogs was digitized using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) to obtain the reference dataset. The model was then scanned with two photogrammetric systems—an extraoral device (3Dots®) and an IOS equipped with IPG (Aoralscan Elite IPG®)—as well as four IOSs (TRIOS 6®, CS 3800®, iTero Lumina™, i900®). Ten scans per IOS were performed under standardized conditions. All datasets were processed in CAD software to replace scanbodies (SBs) with their corresponding library geometries and analyzed in reverse-engineering software to measure inter-implant distances. Absolute deviations from CMM data were used to assess trueness. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05).

EPG demonstrated the highest trueness (mean deviation 5 μm), followed by IPG (29 μm) and iTero Lumina™ (34 μm). The i900® (54 μm), TRIOS 6® (84 μm), and CS 3800® (223 μm) exhibited progressively greater deviations. No significant differences were observed among EPG, IPG, and iTero Lumina™, which all outperformed TRIOS 6® (p ≤ 0.020) and CS 3800® (p < .001). Medit i900® and TRIOS 6® were also significantly more accurate than CS 3800® (p < .001). Segment-level analysis revealed higher deviations for longer inter-implant spans.

Within the limits of this study, EPG achieved the highest accuracy and remains the reference method for full-arch implant digitization. IPG and iTero Lumina™ reached comparably high trueness, followed by Medit i900® and TRIOS 6®.

Next-generation IOSs, particularly iTero Lumina™, may approach the trueness of photogrammetric systems, although photogrammetry—especially EPG—remains the most accurate option for digital full-arch implant acquisition.

Coordinate measuring machine

Extraoral photogrammetry

Intraoral photogrammetry

Intraoral scanners

Full-arch implant impressions

Trueness

extraoral photogrammetry

intraoral photogrammetry

coordinate measuring machine

computer assisted design

computer assisted manufacturing

standard tessellation language

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.