Aim-This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess and compare the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions. Materials and Methods-A systematic search was performed on PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases, focusing on publications from the last five years, specifically from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020. Additionally, we conducted manual searches of pertinent journals, including Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Implant Dentistry, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Computerized Dentistry, Journal of Implantology, and Journal of Periodontology.Results- Thirty studies were included in this systematic review. The study designs were categorized into three groups: 28 experimental studies, one retrospective study, and one randomized controlled clinical trial.Conclusion- The available data for accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions have a low evidence level and do not include sufficient data on in vivo application to derive clinical recommendations.