Objectives The aim of this intrasubject clinical study was to measure and compare prosthodontic and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the fabrication of implant‐supported, all‐ceramic single crowns with a full digital workflow and a conventional workflow. Materials and methods Thirty‐one patients were subjected to first a digital (test group) and then a conventional impression (control group) at the same visit. From the intraoral optical scanner (IOS), a screw‐retained, monolithic crown was delivered according to a complete digital workflow (no cast), whereas a veneered crown on a zirconia (Zi) frame was provided as a control treatment. Both crowns were assessed during the clinical stages of try‐in. Prosthodontic outcomes (contact points, occlusion, PROMs, and esthetic results using the white esthetic score WES) were assessed. Results Occlusion and interproximal contacts showed comparable results for the two workflows (p = 0.37 and p = 0.36, respectively), whereas the global WES was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the control group. Patient satisfaction scores, using visual analog scales (VAS), were significantly better for IOS than for conventional impressions (p = 0.0098). On the contrary, patients’ perception of the esthetic outcomes showed significantly higher value (p < 0.0001) in the control group. Conclusions Both workflows allowed the delivery of ceramic crowns within two appointments. The clinical fit was acceptable in both groups. A better esthetic outcome, in both patients’ and clinicians’ opinions, was found in the control group. PROMs showed higher satisfaction with the IOS.