Objectives: Digital impression-taking techniques are widely used due to their many advantages. However, the accuracy of intraoral scanning in full-arch cases remains a matter of debate. The reliability of different digital implant impression techniques remains questionable in completely edentulous, full-arch cases. This review investigated the accuracy of digital implant impression techniques for full-arch use. Methods: Our study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023393091). Data reporting was based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines, by the Cochrane Handbook. Comparative in vitro studies matching the PICO framework were included. A systematic search was conducted in four databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]). Results: Thirty-four papers were included in analyzing trueness and precision of root mean square (RMS) deviations. No significant differences were observed between test groups. The overall RMS trueness deviation was 53.36 μm [18.44; 88.28] in the extraoral stereophotogrammetry group, 73.88 μm [36.68; 111.09] in the conventional impression group, 99.54 μm [56.22; 142.86] in the IOS plain group, 104.88 μm [36.86; 172.90] in the IOS scanaid group, and 65.58 μm [5.24; 125.92] in the IOS splinted group. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I² ≈ 100%) Conclusions: In case of completely edentulous jaws restored with four to eight implants, digital techniques showed comparable accuracy to the conventional method with no statistically significant differences detected.

Aim: This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to compare soft and hard tissue outcomes of applying anatomic healing abutments (AHA) and provisional restorations (PR) versus cylindrical healing abutments (CHA) on immediately placed single implants. Materials and Methods: Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science) were searched on September 8, 2025, for two‐armed studies comparing AHA/PR to CHA on immediate single‐tooth implants. Outcomes included implant survival (IS), marginal bone loss (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES), patient satisfaction, as well as buccal bone and mucosal changes. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were performed. Results: Twenty studies were included; 12 contributed to quantitative synthesis, showing no difference in IS (over 99% in all groups), MBL, or patient satisfaction. Pooled analysis of seven studies (340 implants) showed higher PES with AHA and PR than CHA group at 1 year (MD: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.12–3.96). Descriptive evidence suggested a trend toward improved horizontal tissue preservation with individualized healing. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, PR significantly improved PES without compromising IS or MBL. Their use may be beneficial, especially in the esthetic region, but further studies are needed to investigate their cost‐effectiveness and long‐term effect, especially on horizontal tissue changes. Clinical Implications: Anatomically shaped healing abutments and provisional restorations provide higher pink esthetics around immediately placed single implants, which is especially relevant for restorations in the anterior region.