## 2 Materials and Methods  
This research was designed following the criteria established by the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA [14; 15; 16]. The researchers registered this systematic review in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020158879). The systematic review was designed considering the PICO index; Population: Individuals requiring oral rehabilitation with implants; Intervention: Prosthetic rehabilitation with complete fixed or removable prostheses (full-arch fixed prostheses supported/overdenture) obtained by the intraoral scanning method; Comparison: Patients who were rehabilitated with prostheses with complete fixed or removable prostheses (full-arch fixed prostheses supported/overdenture) obtained by the conventional method; Outcome: Results of evaluation of survival rates and complications of both prostheses, patient satisfaction after rehabilitation, execution time, biological and technical complications, and marginal bone loss. The selected studies accomplished the following inclusion criteria: (1) conducted in English and (2) clinical studies with a sample size greater than five participants that compared implant-supported prostheses using digital methods to conventional methods in edentulous patients. Studies that included only the digital group were also considered if they aligned with the proposed outcomes. The participants in each study were adultswho received full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses or overdentures. Studies related to in vitro methodologies, studies with uncontrolled clinical case series, studies with incomplete data that did not allow for the necessary information to be collected, and studies involving patients with complications from extensive surgical resections were excluded. The databases used were Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and SciELO. An additional search was carried out in grey literature and other databases to complement the survey of studies: Open Grey, Clinical Trials, Rebec, Google Scholar, Bireme, Lilacs, and Portal Periodicos Capes. These searches were carried out for articles published up to 8 August 2024, using the keywords based on MeSH/PubMed: \"conventional versus digital impressions\", \"dental implants\", \"digital workflow\", \"impressions\", \"digital versus traditional workflow\", \"digital impression\", and \"edentulous patients\". The research, article selection, and data collection were carried out by previously calibrated researchers ([PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON]). In case of disagreement, other reviewers verified the data ([PERSON] and [PERSON]). Two other researchers in the area ([PERSON] and [PERSON]) were part of the study, contributing to the data evaluation and discussion of the topics. Data were collected using an Excel spreadsheet (Excel(r), Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). The qualitative data from each study are organized in Table 1, which includes the following information: author, year of publication, type of study, country, whether the patients were randomized, average age of patients, groups analyzed in the study (digital and conventional), region of implant placement (maxima and mandible), scanner commercial company, type of prosthesis (full-arch and overdentures), type of infrastructure utilized, number of implants per prosthesis, implants commercial company, dimensions of the implants (width and length), and follow-up duration. Table 2 organizes quantitative data from each study by author, number of patients, number of implants per group (digital and conventional), total number of prostheses observed, implant and prosthesis survival rate, prosthesis adaptation rate, marginal bone loss rate, clinical execution time (scanning and conventional group), and technical and biological complications observed. Initially, the included clinical studies were evaluated according to the classification of the type of clinical study, as indicated by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2000) [17].