Comparison Of Conventional and Digital Impression Techniques for Implant Supported Prosthesis: A Narrative Review

Abstract

Background and Aims: Accurate impression making is essential for the success of implant supported prosthesis. With the evolution of digital technologies both traditional and digital impression are widely used. This narrative review aims to compare these methods in terms of overall prosthetic outcomes, patient comfort, clinical efficiency and accuracy. Data Sources: Electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were used to perform a thorough literature search. Study Selection: Based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria clinical trials, comparative studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses on implant-supported prosthetic impressions published between 2000 and 2026 were screened. Data Synthesis: A total of 27 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Conventional techniques (open and closed tray) demonstrated reliable outcomes but were susceptible to material deformation. In full-arch and aesthetic cases, digital techniques such as intraoral scanning, photogrammetry and hybrid processes have demonstrated increased efficiency, improved patient comfort and equivalent or higher accuracy. However, results were affected by variables such as scanner constraints, clinical circumstances and operator skill. Conclusion: Neither conventional nor digital impression techniques are universally superior. The choice of impression depends on clinical requirements, patient-specific considerations and available resources. An integrated approach combining both methods may provide optimal outcome in implant prosthodontics.