## 3 Results  
Based on the analysis considering all search terms, it was possible to select 33,975 articles related to the proposed theme. After reading the titles and abstracts, 20 studies corresponding to the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. The articles' complete reading highlighted some studies on rehabilitation with single implants, partial dentures, and issues not covered by the PICO criteria. After excluding these articles, 11 studies were selected to compose the sample [3; 4; 6; 8; 9; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25], as shown in Figure 1.  
The main information can be seen in Table 1. All included research can be considered in the last 10 years (2015-2024). Regarding the distribution of these researches, 5 were carried out in Europe/Asia [3; 4; 6; 9; 20], 4 in the United States [21; 23; 24; 25], and 2 in Egypt [8; 22]. Figure 1: PRISMA diagram indicating the selection of proposed articles. In the sample, only four studies were considered randomized controlled clinical trials [6; 8; 20; 22], and four were prospective studies [3; 4; 9; 21], of which two studies performed randomization [3; 4]. Moreover, three studies were retrospective [23; 24; 25]. The most prolonged follow-up period performed was 48 months [20], with 4 studies performing an average follow-up of 12 months [3; 4; 9; 23], while 2 studies performed follow-up for 24 months [6; 8]. Five studies performed only digital impression analysis without considering a control group [3; 9; 23; 24; 25]. Six studies compared the group that received prostheses made by the digital flow to the group that received prostheses made conventionally [4; 6; 8; 20; 21; 22]. A total of 325 patients were included in the studies evaluated, covering 393 implants in which the impression was made using the conventional method. On the other hand, 958 implants were scanned intraorally for the production of complete implant-supported prostheses. The mean age of the included patients was 62.21, with a minimum of 41 years and a maximum of 89 years [3; 4; 6; 8; 9; 23]. In five studies, it was not possible to identify the mean age of the participants [20; 21; 22; 24; 25]. Four studies considered the placement of implants in the maxillary region [6; 8; 9; 21]; two considered only rehabilitation of the mandible [22; 25]. Five studies performed rehabilitation in the maxilla and mandible [3; 4; 20; 23; 24]. Regarding the number of implants, three studies used four implants for full-arch rehabilitation [3; 4; 20], while one study used four implants for overdenture retention [9]. Two studies used six implants for full-arch-type rehabilitation [6; 8]. In one study, it was not possible to specify the number of implants for fixation of the prostheses [23]. The other studies varied the number of implants for retention of the prostheses between four and six implants [21; 24; 25]. Two studies compared the conventional versus digital method for fabricating overdentures [9; 22]. This data can be found in Tables 1 and 2 for the studies included in the results [3; 4; 6; 8; 9; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25]. When analyzing the quantitative data in Table 2, it was observed that 133 patients received 146 implant-supported prostheses with 100% survival [3; 4; 6; 9; 20; 23]. Regarding the materials used for the prosthesis infrastructure, there was diversity among the options: unspecified metal [3], CoCr [4; 22], titanium [6; 8; 21; 23], zirconia [20; 24; 25], and PEEK-type thermoplastic polymer [9]. Of the 393 implants placed in the control group and 958 implants in the digital group, 98-100% survived in the periods analyzed (1 to 4 years). Regarding the dimensions of the implants, there was a predominance of lengths of 13 and 15 mm, with the smallest measurement considered being 8 mm [9] and the smallest diameter of 3.3 mm [9; 20]. There was significant heterogeneity regarding the protocol used for implant transfers; five studies performed impressions with an open tray and splinting of the transfers using a rigid connector, being ortho wire and/or composite or acrylic resin [6; 8; 9; 22; 25].