This retrospective comparative clinical investigation aimed to assess how digital impression techniques compare to conventional ones in the context of fabricating implant-supported prosthetic restorations. A total of 40 cases were included: 20 impressions captured with traditional elastomeric materials (polyvinyl siloxane and polyether) and 20 acquired digitally using two distinct intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3 and Medit i700). Every participant received partial fixed implant restorations and was documented throughout all phases of the prosthetic protocol. Radiographic measurements and the Sheffield test gauged accuracy and passive fit. The analysis covered linear distances (mm) across the implant–abutment junction, chairside time (min), and VAS scores (1–10). Clinical efficiency was determined by examining procedural steps, chairside time, and adjustment rates. A structured 10-item Visual Analog Scale (VAS) questionnaire was used to capture patient satisfaction. The digital cohort exhibited a lower misfit rate (15%) compared with the conventional cohort (25%), and no misfits were recorded at the final stage in digital cases. Digital workflows were associated with shorter impression times, fewer procedural steps, and reduced need for prosthetic adjustments. Scores reflecting patient satisfaction were significantly higher in the digital group for all VAS parameters (P < 0.001), especially comfort and satisfaction with esthetics. The data substantiate digital impressions as a clinically efficient alternative favored by patients over conventional approaches for partial implant restorations. Nonetheless, conventional impressions remain a suitable option in facilities where digital solutions remain out of reach. Investigations employing larger sample sizes and longer longitudinal follow-up are advised to examine outcomes relevant to full-arch rehabilitation.
