A systematic review was conducted to compare digital impressions with conventional impressions in prosthodontics. The study evaluated the accuracy, patient acceptability, operator preference, and time effectiveness of digital impression techniques. The review included clinical and preclinical studies, as well as randomized controlled trials. The search strategy was based on the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). Articles published between 2000 and 2023 in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science were reviewed. The study found that digital impressions are comparable in accuracy to conventional impressions without statistically significant differences. Digital impressions also showed better patient acceptability and operator preference due to reduced discomfort, faster turnaround time, and improved communication between dentists and dental technicians. Digital impressions are more time-efficient than conventional methods, which involve more procedural steps and potential error sources. The study also noted that digital impressions can lead to higher patient satisfaction due to the elimination of uncomfortable traditional impression materials. However, the initial cost of digital impression systems and the need for training can be barriers to adoption. Despite these challenges, digital impressions offer significant advantages in terms of accuracy, efficiency, and patient comfort. The review concluded that digital impressions are a viable alternative to conventional impressions in prosthodontics, with the potential to improve clinical outcomes and patient experiences.A systematic review was conducted to compare digital impressions with conventional impressions in prosthodontics. The study evaluated the accuracy, patient acceptability, operator preference, and time effectiveness of digital impression techniques. The review included clinical and preclinical studies, as well as randomized controlled trials. The search strategy was based on the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). Articles published between 2000 and 2023 in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science were reviewed. The study found that digital impressions are comparable in accuracy to conventional impressions without statistically significant differences. Digital impressions also showed better patient acceptability and operator preference due to reduced discomfort, faster turnaround time, and improved communication between dentists and dental technicians. Digital impressions are more time-efficient than conventional methods, which involve more procedural steps and potential error sources. The study also noted that digital impressions can lead to higher patient satisfaction due to the elimination of uncomfortable traditional impression materials. However, the initial cost of digital impression systems and the need for training can be barriers to adoption. Despite these challenges, digital impressions offer significant advantages in terms of accuracy, efficiency, and patient comfort. The review concluded that digital impressions are a viable alternative to conventional impressions in prosthodontics, with the potential to improve clinical outcomes and patient experiences.