Accurate impressions constitute the main requisite for successful implant-supported prostheses to be fitted well, in occlusion, and functionally named in the long term. Conventionally, impression techniques with polyether or polyvinyl siloxane have been considered to be the best choice. With a higher number of cases integrating digital approach into prosthodontic workflows, intraoral scanning has become a contender as an alternative to the traditional methods. Digital impression-making techniques ostensibly promise benefits: reduced chairside time, enhanced patient comfort, and simplification of laboratory procedures. Nevertheless, doubts remain concerning the accuracy of such techniques in highly demanding situations such as full-arch restorations or angulated implants. In implant prosthodontics, this comparative study investigates the advantages and disadvantages of digital versus conventional impression techniques. The review considers evidence from clinical trials, in vitro studies, and systematic reviews to assess parameters such as dimensional accuracy, trueness, precision, patient-reported outcome measures, and workflow efficiency. In general, digital impressions have been shown to surpass conventional methods in patient satisfaction and procedural efficiency, but conventional impressions may yield better results in complicated implant configurations or where there is extensive soft tissue handling. The acceptance of these digital workflows is dependent on cost, clinical experience, and currently existing technical infrastructure. It shows the importance of assessing what may be the right impression technique in each patient. The hybrid method of impressions may be the most feasible working system to employ in today's prosthodontic practice by harnessing the strengths of both systems.