A Comparative Literature Review of Digital and Conventional Impressions in Prosthodontic Practice: From Patient Comfort to Clinical Outcomes

Background: Dental impressions have traditionally been taken using conventional methods, which are time-consuming and often uncomfortable for patients. The rise of digital impression techniques has revolutionized the prosthetics industry, offering improved patient experience and workflow efficiency.Objective: This review aimed to compare digital and conventional impression techniques in prosthodontic practice, focusing on patient comfort, accuracy, clinical outcomes, and time efficiency.Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2024. Eligibility criteria included comparative studies involving digital and conventional impressions, assessing outcomes such as patient comfort, accuracy, and treatment time. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and analyzed qualitatively.Results: Digital impressions were preferred by 85% of patients for comfort, with a significant reduction in gag reflex and procedure time by 30% compared to conventional techniques. Accuracy for full-arch restorations was inconsistent, with conventional methods showing slightly better precision in 45% of cases. Time efficiency favored digital impressions, reducing procedure duration by 40%.Conclusion: Digital impressions offer improved patient comfort and time efficiency, but further research is needed to address gaps in accuracy for full-arch restorations and long-term clinical outcomes.