Purpose: To investigate the available evidence on the accuracy of conventional and digital workflows for complete arch implant supported frameworks. Materials and methods: This scoping review was conducted according to the 5-stage framework of Arksey and O’Malley. A systematic literature search was performed adhering to the PRISMA guidelines to identify studies with a direct comparison of conventional and digital methods for the fabrication of complete arch implant supported frameworks. 58 in-vitro studies with the focus on edentulous arches with at least four implants published between 2000 and 2024 were included. The reported outcomes were examined to determine the value of a statistical analysis for adding up the individual errors to a cumulative error of the workflow. Results: Evidence on the accuracy assessment of digital and conventional workflows for complete arch implant supported frameworks is available. However, also studies with the same assessment methods and outcome units appear to be too heterogeneous to perform a statistical analysis of error accumulation. While there is no consensus in the impression and cast fabrication stage, digital techniques show a superior accuracy for the fabrication of complete arch implant supported frameworks compared to conventional casting. Conclusion: In-vitro studies assessing the accuracy of entire workflows and classifying their outcomes regarding the clinical relevance are lacking.