Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Digital Versus Conventional Dental Impression Techniques in Implant-Supported Restorations

Background: This retrospective comparative clinical study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital versus conventional impression techniques in the fabrication of implant-supported prosthetic restorations. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 cases were included: 20 impressions obtained with conventional elastomeric materials (polyvinyl siloxane and polyether), and 20 impressions acquired digitally using two intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3 and Medit i700). All patients received partial fixed implant restorations and were documented across all stages of prosthetic treatment. Accuracy and passive fit were assessed using radiographic measurements and the Sheffield test. Linear distances (mm) at the implant–abutment interface, chairside time (min), and VAS scores (1–10) were analyzed. Clinical efficiency was evaluated based on procedural steps, chairside time, and adjustment frequency. Patient satisfaction was assessed through a structured 10-item Visual Analog Scale (VAS) questionnaire. Results: Results showed a lower misfit rate in the digital group (15%) compared to the conventional group (25%), with no final-stage misfits in digital cases. Digital workflows demonstrated shorter impression times, fewer procedural steps, and reduced the need for prosthetic adjustments. Patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the digital group across all VAS parameters (p < 0.001), particularly in comfort and esthetic satisfaction. Conclusions: These findings support the use of digital impressions as a clinically efficient and patient-preferred alternative to conventional methods for partial implant restorations. However, conventional impressions remain a viable option in settings where digital technology is not available. Further studies with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up are recommended to assess outcomes in full-arch rehabilitation.