Photogrammetry vs intraoral scanning for full-arch implants

What is dental implant photogrammetry?

Dental implant photogrammetry records implant positions with cameras, reading dedicated scan bodies with optical targets screwed onto the implants or abutments. In extraoral systems, two stereo cameras photograph all the targets at once and calculate each implant’s position and angulation relative to the others.

The output file holds those coordinates and nothing else. Some systems run photogrammetry through the intraoral scanner itself; the review by Revilla-León and colleagues (The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2026) groups it with the calibrated techniques for full-arch implant scanning.

Why does intraoral scanning lose accuracy on a full arch?

Intraoral scanning loses accuracy across a full arch because the scanner builds the model by stitching consecutive images, and every join adds a little error. On a long edentulous ridge with few stable landmarks, that error adds up. Extraoral photogrammetry skips the stitching and captures every scan body in a single shot.

In the review by Pozzi and colleagues (Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2025), intraoral scanning went past 1° of angular deviation, the threshold linked to passive fit, in all three studies that measured angles. Photogrammetry stayed between 0.24° and 0.80°. Scan technique is still in your hands; the steps are in our guide on how to scan a full arch for an implant bridge.

Photogrammetry or intraoral scanning: which is more accurate?

Photogrammetry was more accurate than intraoral scanning in most of the full-arch implant systematic reviews published in 2025 and 2026. The edge shows up in both trueness and precision, linear and angular. Most of the underlying studies are in vitro, and the authors want clinical trials before a firm conclusion.

In the Revilla-León review, every calibrated technique stayed under 150 µm, the distortion threshold the authors treat as clinically acceptable. What the table doesn’t measure is how much the difference changes the bridge in the mouth, and few clinical studies address that.

Are there clinical results for bridges made from photogrammetry?

Yes, in short series. In the retrospective multicenter study by Stefanović and colleagues (Journal of Dentistry, 2026), 52 full-arch bridges on 221 implants, made from intraoral photogrammetry, passed the one-screw test at delivery. At about 12 months, prosthesis survival was 100%.

Zhang and colleagues (The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2023) compared photogrammetry with splinted conventional impressions in 14 arches. Mean deviation was 70 µm, under the 150 µm threshold, and grew with the distance between implants.

In the randomized pilot trial by Peñarrocha-Diago and colleagues (2017), with immediate loading in 18 patients, photogrammetry and conventional impressions did not differ in implant success, marginal bone loss or prosthesis survival.

Which technique takes less chair time?

Intraoral scanning was the fastest technique in the clinical study by Robert and colleagues (International Journal of Oral Implantology, 2026), with 20 edentulous patients and four to eight implants each. Photogrammetry and plaster impressions took longer in the chair, and patients rated both digital techniques above the conventional impression.

In the same study, photogrammetry had the lowest error: 0.030 mm root mean square error, against 0.117 mm for the intraoral scanner and 0.110 mm for plaster. Against conventional impressions, it shortened the appointment in the Peñarrocha-Diago trial (15.6 vs 20.5 minutes). Remember to count the intraoral scan that photogrammetry still needs.

What doesn’t photogrammetry capture?

Photogrammetry doesn’t capture soft tissue, the ridge, teeth, emergence profiles or the bite: its file holds implant positions only. The case also needs an intraoral scan or an impression, which the technician aligns with the camera file. The review by Negreiros and colleagues (Australian Dental Journal, 2025) also lists the cost of the device.

Source: Pozzi et al. (2025) and Negreiros et al. (2025).

Before your first photogrammetry case, ask the lab whether it takes the camera file, in which format, and how it wants the matching intraoral scan: both have to open in the same design software. Everything else on the Rx, from implant brand and platform to the scanned provisional, is in the full-arch scanning guide.

When does photogrammetry make the biggest difference?

Photogrammetry makes the biggest difference when the arch has many implants or widely spaced ones. In the meta-analysis by Alfaraj and colleagues (Journal of Prosthodontics, 2026), digital accuracy dropped above four implants, and photogrammetry appeared to offset the drop. In the Zhang clinical study (2023), deviation grew with inter-implant distance.

The choice of technique is yours. Whichever you use, Pozzi and colleagues recommend a rigid prototype try-in until clinical trials catch up. That applies to any rigid definitive bridge, such as a milled titanium bar or a full-arch zirconia bridge.

Smile Digital Lab, a digital dental lab in São Paulo, Brazil, makes full-arch bridges in zirconia, zirconia on a titanium bar or PMMA, with Neodent and Titaniumfix components, both made in Brazil. We check every case when it arrives and on eight points before it ships. The options are on our implant restorations page.