Intraoral scanning and cloud: connecting practice and laboratory workflows
From scan acquisition to case sharing: evaluating data, collaboration, costs and operational continuity in a cloud dental workflow.
DENTAL INNOVATION · INSIGHT
Full-arch implant photogrammetry: accuracy and workflow
Lorenzo Riccelli · Dental Innovation
In full-arch implant rehabilitation, choosing an acquisition system requires looking beyond scanning speed. What information does it produce? How is that information integrated into prosthetic design? Which checks are still necessary?
Intraoral scanning and photogrammetry capture different information
An intraoral scanner reconstructs surfaces through successive acquisitions. Across extensive edentulous arches, the lack of stable landmarks can make this reconstruction more challenging.
Extraoral stereophotogrammetry records spatial relationships between dedicated implant references. On its own, it does not capture tissue anatomy: that information needs to be integrated from other acquisitions. [1]
What the literature shows, and what remains unresolved
The 2025 systematic review by Pozzi and colleagues reports favourable results for stereophotogrammetry compared with the scanners assessed, particularly in laboratory comparisons. The authors highlight methodological heterogeneity and the need for further clinical studies. They still recommend verification with a rigid prototype. [1]
This finding does not automatically rank every available device: different systems, versions and protocols require relevant evidence.
Accuracy is more than repeatability
Trueness describes closeness to a reference; precision describes consistency between repeated measurements. To interpret a comparison, we need to understand the reference, experimental conditions and metric used. A model-based result is not evidence of clinical success. [1]
Assessing adoption within your workflow
I suggest discussing five questions with the laboratory and supplier:
- Which components and libraries are required for the cases being treated?
- What data is delivered, and in which formats?
- Who checks the integration of the different acquisitions?
- What training is needed to recognise when an acquisition should be repeated?
- How are support, updates and prosthetic verification managed?
This assessment should come before the financial comparison. The initial price alone does not describe the organisational cost of adoption.
Evaluate the complete process
Photogrammetry and intraoral scanning belong within the working system connecting practice and laboratory. The most useful choice is one for which the team understands the data, compatibility and responsibilities, with a clear verification pathway.
This is the same principle discussed in the article on digital dentistry adoption: a technology gains value when it becomes part of a manageable process.
Source
- Pozzi A. et al. Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2025;27:e70059. DOI: 10.1111/cid.70059. Full text.
Prices, uniqueness claims and undocumented commercial comparisons were removed from the draft. The cited review is not used to attribute performance to products that were not studied.
