## 4 Discussion  
This study compared the time required for implant position scanning using digital and conventional impression techniques and investigated patient satisfaction through a questionnaire. The results showed that the digital method took significantly less time compared to the conventional impression method. Moreover, patients reported higher satisfaction with the treatment time, convenience, comfort, and less pain, discomfort, nausea, and anxiety using the digital technique. To ensure consistency and eliminate potential operator-related variability, both the digital and conventional techniques were performed by a trained professional with extensive experience in implant prosthetics and intraoral scanning. This standardization aimed to minimize technique-sensitive errors and ensure reliable comparisons between the two methods. The results indicate that the total working time for the digital impression process was 353.5 \(\pm\) 62.6 s, significantly shorter than the conventional impression method using \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Time**} & **Conventional** & **Digital** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} \\  & **Impressions** & & \\  & **(Second)** & & \\ \hline Implant position scanning/Rubber impression & 373.9 \(\pm\) 44.2 & 214.8 \(\pm\) 47.0 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Opposing arch scanning/Opposing arch impression & 180.2 \(\pm\) 22.1 & 102.3 \(\pm\) 25.2 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Centric occlusion scanning/Bite registration & 86.8 \(\pm\) 14.7 & 36.4 \(\pm\) 10.2 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Total impression time & 640.8 \(\pm\) 52.8 & 353.5 \(\pm\) 62.6 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Data are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of impression time between conventional and digital impressions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline  & **Conventional** & **Digital** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} \\  & **Impressions** & & \\ \hline Satisfaction with impression time & 72.0 \(\pm\) 15.2 & 87.4 \(\pm\) 11.2 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Level of anxiety & 19.7 \(\pm\) 17.8 & 11.3 \(\pm\) 13.4 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Level of convenience during impression & 68.9 \(\pm\) 15.8 & 82.3 \(\pm\) 14.0 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Level of pain during impression & 19.9 \(\pm\) 14.3 & 12.8 \(\pm\) 13.0 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Unpleasant taste during and after impression & 31.8 \(\pm\) 20.0 & 13.2 \(\pm\) 15.3 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Level of nausea during impression & 27 \(\pm\) 21.4 & 14.3 \(\pm\) 19.3 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Data are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Evaluation of patient satisfaction. rubber materials, which took 640.8 \(\pm\) 52.8 s. The average time difference between the two methods was 287.3 s (\(p\) < 0.001). Implant position scanning was the most time-consuming step in both methods, but digital impressions significantly reduce the overall time required. Furthermore, the time differences at each stage of the impression process further confirm that digital impressions were faster than conventional impressions. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [19] reported that the total time for the digital impression process was 676.8 s, which was shorter than the conventional rubber impression method, which took 846.6 s. Our study showed a shorter total implant scanning time using the IOS scanner compared to [PERSON]'s study, due to differences in the time intervals considered during the impression process and the scanning systems used. In our study, the total time for digital implant scanning was the sum of the times for implant position scanning, opposing arch scanning, and centric occlusion scanning. In contrast, [PERSON]'s study also included preparation time. The system used in [PERSON]'s research was the iFero Element (Align Technology Inc., Tempe, AZ, USA), while we used the Trios 3 Move+ (3 Shape A/S). [PERSON] et al.