Three implant impression techniques, using 3 different splinting materials, were assessed for accuracy in a laboratory model that simulated clinical practice. For group A, an autopolymerizing acrylic resin was used to splint transfer copings. In group B, a dual-cure acrylic resin was used, and for group C, plaster, which was also the impression material, was used. A metal implant master cast with an implant master framework was made to accurately fit to the cast. This cast was the standard for all impressions. For each group, 15 impressions were made. Polyether impression material was used for groups A and B. The accuracy of the stone casts with the implant analogues was measured against the master framework, using strain gauges. A multiple analysis of variance with repeated measures was performed to test for significant differences among the 3 groups. Additional analyses of variance were carried out to locate the source of difference. The statistical analyses revealed that a significant difference existed between groups A and B and between groups B and C but not between groups A and C. Impression techniques using autopolymerizing acrylic resin or impression plaster as a splinting material were significantly more accurate than dual-cure acrylic resin. Plaster is the material of choice in completely edentulous patients, since it is much easier to manipulate, less time consuming, and less expensive. Keywords: abutment, autopolymerizing acrylic resin, dual-cure acrylic resin, implant, impression plaster, transfer copings