Digital Implant Position Recording in Complete-Arch Prostheses: Intraoral and Extraoral Techniques

Background/Objective: Accurate digital recording of implant position is essential for achieving passive fit and predictable outcomes in complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. However, complete-arch cases remain challenging because of increased inter-implant distances, limited anatomical landmarks, soft tissue mobility, scan body-related variables, and cumulative errors during data acquisition and file registration. This narrative review aims to evaluate current intraoral and extraoral digital implant position recording techniques from a clinical decision-making perspective. Methods: A structured narrative literature search was conducted in PubMed from database inception to 15 May 2026 and was supplemented by manual screening of reference lists of key systematic reviews and eligible articles. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical studies, comparative in vitro studies, dental technique articles, and clinical reports relevant to complete-arch digital implant position recording were considered. Higher-level and clinically relevant evidence was prioritized, whereas technique reports were included primarily for emerging workflows with limited clinical evidence. Results: Intraoral techniques include non-splinted and splinted scan body protocols, calibrated implant scan bodies, calibrated frameworks, and auxiliary reference strategies. These methods may be clinically efficient but remain sensitive to scan path, scanner technology, landmark availability, scan body design, implant distribution, and operator-related factors. Extraoral techniques include stereophotogrammetry, camera- or smartphone-assisted photogrammetric systems, reverse impression workflows, and laboratory scanner-based digitization. These approaches may reduce intraoral stitching errors in complex edentulous arches, but usually require complementary datasets for soft tissue morphology, prosthetic contours, antagonist dentition, and maxillomandibular relationships. Conclusions: Direct intraoral scanner (IOS) protocols may be appropriate in favorable complete-arch situations with accessible scan bodies, limited inter-implant distances, and stable reference geometry. In clinically demanding cases requiring greater cross-arch accuracy, stereophotogrammetry, intraoral photogrammetry, or calibrated scanning approaches may provide more controlled implant position recording. Reverse impression and model-based workflows are particularly useful when a verified interim prosthesis, verification jig, or cast-based reference is available. Regardless of the selected technique, accurate integration of implant coordinates with soft tissue, prosthetic contour, antagonist arch, and occlusal data remains essential.