DIGITAL VS CONVENTIONAL IMPRESSIONS: ARE INTRAORAL SCANNERS READY TO REPLACE TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES?

Background Dental impression accuracy is a foundational determinant of prosthetic fit, biological stability, and long-term clinical success. Conventional impression techniques have long been regarded as the gold standard; however, rapid advances in intraoral scanner (IOS) technology have profoundly transformed prosthodontic workflows. Despite growing clinical adoption of digital impressions, uncertainty persists regarding their reliability across different indications, anatomical scenarios, and disciplines. Objective: This narrative review aims to critically evaluate the accuracy, efficiency, and clinical applicability of digital intraoral impressions compared with conventional impression techniques. Particular emphasis is placed on identifying clinical and technical factors influencing impression accuracy in prosthodontics, implant dentistry, and interdisciplinary applications. Methods A comprehensive narrative review of the literature was conducted, encompassing historical, in vitro, and in vivo studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The analysis focused on impression accuracy, marginal and internal fit, implant position transfer, patient comfort, time and cost efficiency, and workflow integration across prosthodontics, implantology, orthodontics, periodontology, and endodontics. Results Evidence consistently demonstrates that digital impressions achieve accuracy comparable to, and frequently exceeding, that of conventional impressions for single-unit restorations, short-span fixed prostheses, and most partially edentulous cases. In implant dentistry, digital impressions provide reliable transfer of implant positions, improved patient comfort, and significant reductions in chairside time and overall treatment duration. However, accuracy remains influenced by multiple variables, including implant distribution and angulation, scan length, extent of edentulism, scanner technology, scanning strategy, and operator experience. Full-arch and highly angulated implant cases may exhibit increased deviation unless advanced scanners, auxiliary reference markers, or hybrid workflows are employed. Beyond prosthodontics, IOS systems demonstrate high clinical value in orthodontics, guided surgery, periodontal diagnostics, and post-endodontic restoration planning. Conclusions Intraoral scanning has evolved from an adjunctive innovation into a clinically robust alternative to conventional impression techniques. While conventional impressions remain indicated in selected complex scenarios, digital impressions provide equal or superior accuracy in most routine prosthetic and implant workflows, alongside clear advantages in patient comfort, efficiency, and interdisciplinary integration. Impression selection should therefore be based on clinical complexity, technological capability, and workflow design rather than methodological tradition alone.