PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to compare the precision of optical impression (Trios, 3Shape) versus that of conventional impression (Imprint IV, 3M-ESPE) with three different margins (shoulder, chamfer, and knife-edge) on Frasaco teeth.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe sample comprised of 60 zirconia half-crowns, divided into six groups according to the type of impression and margin. Scanning electron microscopy enabled us to analyze the gap between the zirconia crowns and the Frasaco teeth, using ImageJ software, based on eight reproducible and standardized measuring points.RESULTSNo statistically significant difference was found between conventional impressions and optical impressions, except for two of the eight points. A statistically significant difference was observed between the three margin types; the chamfer and knife-edge finishing lines appeared to offer better adaptation results than the shoulder margin.CONCLUSIONZirconia crowns created from optical impression and those created from conventional impression present similar adaptation. While offering identical results, the former have many advantages. In view of our findings, we believe the chamfer margin should be favored.