Digital vs conventional implant impressions: what should GDPs know?

Digital dentistry has changed the way many implant restorations are produced.

For a dentist starting to restore implants, that can create an obvious question:

Do I need an intraoral scanner to restore dental implants?

No.

Both digital and conventional implant impression workflows remain relevant.

What matters is understanding how each method transfers implant position accurately to the dental laboratory — and knowing how to use the chosen technique correctly.

What is an implant impression actually recording?

A conventional crown impression primarily records the prepared tooth and surrounding anatomy.

An implant impression has an additional requirement:

the exact position and orientation of the implant or restorative interface must be transferred to the laboratory.

The technician then needs that information to manufacture a restoration that accurately engages with the implant.

Digital and conventional techniques achieve this in different ways.

How does a digital implant impression work?

In a digital workflow, the clinician removes the healing component and attaches a compatible scan body to the implant or abutment.

The scan body has a known geometry.

An intraoral scanner captures:

• the scan body;
• surrounding teeth;
• opposing dentition;
• soft tissues;
• occlusal relationship.

The CAD/CAM software identifies the scan body's known geometry and uses the appropriate digital library to determine the position and orientation of the implant connection.

Straumann describes this function directly: its scan bodies represent the position and orientation of the implant, analogue or abutment to allow the CAD/CAM software to align the subsequent restoration.

The scan is then transferred digitally to the laboratory.

Advantages of digital implant impressions

1. Efficient data capture

For straightforward single implant cases, digital scanning can be very efficient.

A randomised crossover clinical study involving single-tooth implant restorations found both digital and conventional methods successfully captured implant position, but the digital workflow was more time-efficient and preferred by patients.

A later clinical comparison of posterior single-implant crowns similarly found that both workflows achieved successful outcomes, while the digital protocol saved time during data acquisition and laboratory stages.

2. Immediate assessment

One practical advantage of scanning is the ability to inspect the dataset before the patient leaves.

You can assess whether:

• the scan body has been captured;
• adjacent anatomy has been recorded;
• margins of the scan field are adequate;
• areas are missing;
• additional scanning is required.

With conventional impressions, an unnoticed defect may not become apparent until later.

3. Patient experience

Some patients find intraoral scanning more comfortable than conventional impressions.

This is not just anecdotal: the randomised clinical study mentioned above found higher patient preference for the digital technique.

4. Digital laboratory communication

The scan can be transmitted immediately, without:

• impression disinfection/transport;
• physical impression distortion;
• postage;
• conventional model production at the first stage.

It also integrates naturally with CAD/CAM restorative design.

What are the limitations of digital implant impressions?

Digital does not mean error-proof.

The quality of the workflow still depends on:

• using the correct scan body;
• complete seating;
• appropriate scan-body geometry;
• scanner accuracy;
• correct scanning strategy;
• adequate visibility;
• appropriate software libraries;
• clinician technique.

Research has demonstrated that factors including scan-body design, implant position and angulation can influence digital impression accuracy.

That becomes increasingly relevant as implant restorations become more complex.

A perfect-looking digital image is not proof that the underlying clinical information is correct.

How does a conventional implant impression work?

Instead of a scan body, the clinician connects an impression coping to the implant.

The coping transfers the implant's position into the impression.

An implant analogue can then be connected to reproduce the position of the implant within the laboratory model.

Two commonly discussed techniques are:

Closed-tray impression

The impression coping remains intraorally when the impression is removed and is subsequently repositioned into the impression.

Open-tray or pick-up impression

The coping is retained within the impression when the impression is removed.

The exact technique and components depend upon the implant system and clinical situation.

Advantages of conventional implant impressions

1. No intraoral scanner required

This makes implant restoration accessible to practices without significant digital investment.

You do not need a scanner before learning to restore implants.

2. Established technique

Conventional implant impressions have been used successfully for many years and remain a legitimate restorative workflow.

3. Useful skill across different clinical environments

Even clinicians who predominantly work digitally benefit from understanding conventional workflows.

Scanners fail.

Software occasionally causes problems.

Not every practice or laboratory uses the same digital infrastructure.

Being able to work both ways makes you more adaptable.

Limitations of conventional implant impressions

Compared with scanning, the workflow can involve more physical stages:

• impression material;
• tray selection or modification;
• impression coping;
• implant analogue;
• impression disinfection;
• transportation;
• model production.

Errors can potentially occur at several stages, including component seating, impression technique and laboratory transfer.

Patient experience may also be less favourable for individuals who struggle with conventional impression materials.

Which is more accurate?

For straightforward single implant restorations, both techniques can work extremely well.

The available clinical evidence supports the use of both digital and conventional workflows, with digital techniques offering particular advantages in time efficiency and patient preference.

However, avoid extrapolating a straightforward single implant workflow to every implant situation.

As implant number, span, angulation and complexity increase, digital impression accuracy becomes a more complicated subject, and technique selection should reflect the individual case.

Scan body vs impression coping

A useful way to remember the distinction is:

Both are trying to answer exactly the same question:

Common mistakes with digital implant impressions

Perhaps the most important mistake is incomplete scan-body seating.

Manufacturer guidance specifically recommends checking the scan body for proper fit and inappropriate rotational or vertical movement and ensuring that it is seated and correctly oriented before scanning.

Other potential problems include:

• wrong scan body;
• wrong digital library;
• scan body contacting adjacent teeth;
• inadequate capture of the scan body;
• poor scan strategy;
• contamination;
• damaged reusable components.

Common mistakes with conventional implant impressions

Potential errors include:

• wrong impression coping;
• incomplete coping seating;
• loose coping screw;
• inappropriate tray technique;
• inadequate impression material support;
• movement during setting;
• incorrect repositioning of a closed-tray coping;
• laboratory communication errors.

The component needs to be correctly connected regardless of whether the information leaving the mouth is digital or physical.

Which technique should a GDP learn?

My recommendation is straightforward:

Learn both.

If you have an intraoral scanner, digital implant impressions are likely to become an important part of your restorative workflow.

But understanding conventional implant impressions gives you a much better appreciation of how implant position is transferred and makes you less dependent on a single technology.

The underlying principles matter more than the device.

Want to practise both workflows?

On Engage One: The Single Implant Crown, delegates work through both digital scan-body and conventional implant impression techniques as part of the complete restorative workflow.

You'll also practise component identification, crown fitting, seating verification, torque protocols, occlusion and screw-access sealing.

No intraoral scanner is required in your own practice to attend.

Explore Engage One →

Clinical note: Impression technique and component selection must be appropriate to the individual implant system, patient and restoration. Follow the relevant manufacturer's instructions.