## 4 Discussion
also [18] used the Trios 3 IOS scanner for implant position scanning, with a total average time of 8.6 \(\pm\) 1.6 min, which is faster than the IOS Virtua Vivo scanner by Dental Wings Inc (Montreal, QC, Canada). The discrepancies in the time intervals considered in these studies may explain the shorter total time recorded in our study compared to those of [PERSON] and [PERSON] et al. 's studies [18; 19; 20; 21]. One key advantage of digital impression techniques is the ability to take additional scans without needing to repeat the entire impression process [19]. Digital techniques have been shown to be more efficient and reduce the total time for implant position scanning by as much as 50% compared to conventional methods [22; 23]. Participants reported higher satisfaction with the impression time using the digital technique. The mean satisfaction score for the digital group was 87.4 \(\pm\) 11.2, compared to 72 \(\pm\) 15.2 for the conventional impression group (\(p\) < 0.001). This result is consistent with that of the studies by [PERSON] et al. [17], [PERSON] et al. [24], [PERSON] et al. [25], and [PERSON] et al. [26]. Patients tend to be more satisfied when the time spent in the chair is shorter, and they prefer techniques that are less time-consuming [19]. This is consistent with our findings; the total impression time for the digital method was shorter than that of the traditional rubber impression method. Pain perception may be related to the tools and materials used during the impression-taking process. Traditional techniques involve the use of rubber impression materials and trays that come into contact with teeth and gums, which can cause discomfort. The digital technique used a small scanner head to capture digital data, minimizing contact with oral tissues, resulting in a more comfortable experience for patients. Patients reported little to no unpleasant taste with the digital technique. The scanning head generated very little heat, which patients often did not notice, leading to minimal discomfort. Additionally, the digital technique causes less nausea compared to the traditional method, similarly to findings of [PERSON] et al. [25]. These advantages make digital impressions a highly practical and patient-friendly option, especially in busy dental practices where time efficiency and patient experience are critical [27; 28; 29]. The ability to take additional scans without repeating the entire process further underscores the flexibility and reliability of digital systems, reducing the likelihood of errors and the need for retakes. This feature is particularly beneficial in complex cases, such as full-arch restorations or cases involving multiple implants, where precision and efficiency are paramount. Additionally, the reduced physical discomfort and anxiety associated with digital impressions make them more appealing to patients, potentially improving compliance and overall treatment outcomes. This study had some limitations. The sample size was relatively limited, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. A larger sample size across diverse demographics would provide more robust data. This study focused on a single type of digital impression system (Trios 3), which may not fully represent the performance of other digital impression systems available on the market. Further research comparing multiple digital impression systems would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the technology's effectiveness. This study focused on impression time and patient satisfaction. Future research should investigate long-term clinical outcomes, such as the accuracy and stability of prosthesis fit over time, to provide a more comprehensive comparison between digital and conventional impressions. Furthermore, the patient satisfaction assessment, while valuable, was based on subjective self-reporting, which may be influenced by individual biases. Objective measurements and longer follow-up periods would strengthen the findings.