(1) Background: The objective of this study was to assess which digitization method produces the biggest deviation in the 3D images of tooth size from plaster models made using alginate impressions, which are considered the gold standard in orthodontics. (2) Methods: The sample used in this study included 30 subjects (10 males and 20 females). Measurements were made on four types of models: (1) digital models obtained through intraoral scanning and digitized models of plaster cast made from (2) alginate impressions, (3) silicone impressions, and (4) conventional plaster models. Mesio-distal (MD) and buccal/labial–lingual/palatal (BL) dimensions were measured on the reference teeth of the right side of the jaw (central incisor, canine, first premolar, and first molar). Comparisons of tooth size between the methods were conducted using a repeated measurement analysis of variance and the Friedman test, while the intraclass correlation coefficient was used to determine agreement between the different methods. (3) Results: The results showed a similar level of agreement between the conventional and digital models in both jaws and the anterior, middle, and posterior segments. Better agreement was found for the MD measurements (r = 0.337–0.798; p ≤ 0.05) compared to the BL measurements (r = 0.016–0.542), with a smaller mean difference for MD (0.001–0.50 mm) compared to BL (0.02–1.48 mm) and a smaller measurement error for MD (0.20–0.39) compared to BL (0.38–0.89). There was more frequently a better level of agreement between 3D images than measurements made using a digital caliper on the plaster models with 3D images. (4) Conclusions: The differences in measurements between the digital models and conventional plaster models were small and clinically acceptable.

One of the key factors influencing osseointegration is the hydrophilicity of the surface of dental implants; high hydrophilicity is more advantageous than low hydrophilicity. This study aimed to compare the hydrophilic properties of titanium and zirconia implants from different manufacturers. An in vitro analysis was conducted on 15 implants—13 titanium and 2 zirconia—each featuring distinct compositions and surface treatments. Their hydrophilicity was assessed using the contact angle method, where a drop of saline solution was pipetted onto the apical part of the implant. For each implant, 30 contact angle measurements were taken at three different surface wetting time intervals. The contact angle is defined as the internal angle between the tangent to the surface of the liquid and the surface at the point of tangency; a smaller angle means a higher hydrophilicity. The results show that titanium implants from BTI UniCa, Nobel TiUltra, and Straumann Roxolid SLActive—which are classified as premium implants—exhibited the highest hydrophilicity. In contrast, zirconia implants demonstrated significantly lower hydrophilicity. Within this group, the Nobel Pearl implant exhibited smaller contact angles than the Bredent WhiteSKY implant. Our findings confirm that high-quality titanium implants show superior hydrophilicity, potentially improving clinical outcomes by accelerating healing and facilitating immediate loading protocols, but this could only be proven with an in vivo animal study. Conversely, the relatively lower hydrophilicity of zirconia implants highlights the need for continued advancements in zirconia composition and surface modification to optimize their osseointegration potential.