Background <p>This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy, in terms of trueness and precision, of complete-arch digital implant impressions obtained using various scanbody configurations, and to assess the influence of the scanned arch and intraoral scanner on accuracy.</p> Methods <p>This study used edentulous maxillary and mandibular resin models with six implants per arch. Three scanbody configurations were evaluated: conventional scanbodies (SB), ScanTransfers (ST), and splinted ScanTransfers (SST). Each configuration was applied to both arches and scanned using two intraoral scanners (3Shape^® TRIOS^® 4 and Medit^® i700 Wireless). Fifteen scans were obtained per subgroup. Reference datasets were acquired using a laboratory scanner. Trueness and precision were quantified as root-mean-square (RMS) deviations after three-dimensional alignment. Statistical analysis included the Kruskal–Wallis H test and Mann–Whitney U test, with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05).</p> Results <p>Scanbody configuration significantly influenced both trueness and precision (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). The SST group demonstrated the highest trueness (78.54 ± 20.71&#xa0;μm) and precision (63.40 ± 18.30&#xa0;μm), while SB and ST showed higher discrepancies. No significant differences were observed between the maxillary and mandibular arches for trueness or precision (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05), or between scanners (<i>p</i> = 0.198); however, precision was significantly higher with the TRIOS^® 4 than with the Medit^® i700 Wireless (<i>p</i> = 0.006). All accuracy values fell within previously reported ranges.</p> Conclusions <p>Scanbody design and splinting influence the reliability of complete-arch digital implant impressions, while arch type appears to have a limited impact. Scanner-related differences may affect reproducibility.</p>