## 4 Discussion
Other factors related to the patient should also be considered, such as limitations in mouth opening, excessive saliva production, movements during scanning in addition to accumulation of registration, angulation errors, and presence of alveolar mucosa [22]. These factors can complicate the scanning process [10; 22], particularly in edentulous arches, and may result in a higher number of repetitions needed to obtain accurate scans. As the team's learning curve improves, more favorable results can be achieved [6; 9]. This allows for the possibility of repeating the scan to become a straightforward variable that can be executed quickly. This contributes positively to the clinical performance of CAD/CAM prostheses. So, it is crucial for professionals to be able to detect potential defects in the scans at the initial stage. In addition, it is important to recognize that an increased number of implants placed in the maxilla or variations in arch curvature can lead to the accumulation of errors during the scanning process. This highlights the need for further studies in the field, particularly those assessing inaccuracies in the 3D stage [3; 8; 21]. Nevertheless, scanning provides a 3D preview that enables real-time verification of the scan [6]. When it comes to the impression of edentulous areas, the key difference between conventional and digital methods is the handling of soft tissues, a process that is more straightforward with conventional impressions [34]. However, the correct positioning of the mucosa is equally vital in both methods. This correct positioning is essential for the prosthesis to be properly fitted, reducing the risk of food impaction and ensuring effective hygiene [34; 35]. In the case of the digital method, the challenge lies in accurately reading and identifying edentulous margins, coupled with the increased potential for changes in mucosal positioning due to mucosal hyperextension during the digital impression removal technique. These challenges can lead to a lower satisfaction rate and difficulties in adaptingthe implant-supported prosthesis to the adjacent tissues. It's worth noting that the sample included in this review did not show any unfavorable results for the proposed treatments. Despite this, the results contemplated in the sample demonstrated that there were no statistical differences regarding marginal bone loss [4, 6, 8, 20] and the number of technical or biological complications [3, 4, 6, 8] when comparing digital group and the control group. When analyzing the types of technical complications reported, these are related to daily clinical practice regardless of the method of obtaining, with clinical analysis of the patient, monitoring, and control of parafunctional habits being relevant, as highlighted in the literature [8, 9, 20, 23, 25]. It should be emphasized that there is a need for adaptation to the use of software, mastery of the technique, and aspects related to patients, such as limitations in opening the mouth, exaggerated presence of saliva, patient movements during scanning, and presence of areas of alveolar mucosa, which reflect the greater difficulty in obtaining the scan [10], especially in edentulous arches. Thus, more favorable results can be obtained as the team's learning curve evolves [6]. However, it is worth highlighting the improved control offered by the hybrid flow. This approach allows the use of a conventional impression, which in turn enables a fusion of the traditional technique with CAD/CAM technology. This means that a professional can execute a precise conventional impression with enhanced control of fluids and mucosal positioning, followed by model scanning to leverage the benefits of traditional mucosal impressions. This is associated with adequate marginal adaptation [3, 4, 6, 20, 21, 23] and a wider range of materials available for prosthesis manufacturing using the CAD/CAM method [9, 20, 24, 25].