Background- Digital impressions have revolutionized implant dentistry, offering advantages in accuracy, efficiency, and patient comfort. However, conventional impressions remain widely used, particularly in cases requiring detailed soft tissue capture and full-arch rehabilitations.Materials and Methods- The aim of this systematic review was to compare digital and conventional impression techniques in fully and partially edentulous patients based on accuracy, patient perception, time efficiency, technique sensitivity, and operator preferences. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, clinical comparative studies, and in vitro research published between 2010 and 2025. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trialsand the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.Results- A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Digital impressions demonstrated comparable or superior accuracy to conventional impressions, particularly in single-implant and short-span prostheses. Studies reported that digital impressions reduced chair side time and improved workflow efficiency, with significant reductions in retake rates and errors. Patient satisfaction was notably higher with digital impressions due to reduced discomfort and gag reflex. However, full-arch digital impressions showed minor deviations and conventional impressions remained preferable in highly angulated implants and deep subgingival margin cases.Conclusions- Digital impression techniques provide high accuracy, efficiency, and patient satisfaction, making them a reliable alternative to conventional techniquesin many clinical scenarios. However, conventional impressions remainnecessary in specific cases where digital scans may struggle with angulated implants or deep tissue capture.