Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36561580›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Contemporary Evidence of CAD-CAM in Dentistry: A Systematic Review.

Mahesh Suganna, Hina Kausher, Sara Tarek Ahmed, Haifa Sultan Alharbi, Bushra Faraj Alsubaie, Aruna Ds, Shaista Haleem, Abbasi Begum Meer Rownaq Ali

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. CAD/CAM and Maxillary Obturators in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Review.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mahesh SugannaProsthodontics, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, SAU.
Hina KausherProsthodontics/Dental Lab Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, SAU.
Sara Tarek AhmedProsthodontics, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, SAU.
Haifa Sultan AlharbiDental Lab Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, SAU.
Bushra Faraj AlsubaieDental Lab Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, SAU.
Aruna DsDentistry/Dental Public Health and Tobacco Cessation, Private Consultancy, Bengaluru, IND.
Shaista HaleemAesthetic and Restorative Dentistry, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, SAU.
Abbasi Begum Meer Rownaq AliProsthodontics, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this systematic review, we compare the quality and accuracy of computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) techniques currently employed in dentistry with those of traditional materials. Published literature on the study topic was searched in the online MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Cochrane library databases and the database of Indian Council of Medical Research. For this systematic review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework was applied for the assessment of studies fit for investigation. Of the total 103 papers searched, 54 underwent in-depth evaluation. Using criteria for what to include and what to leave out, we chose research that was relevant to our review and narrowed it down to 14 papers that met the review's guidelines. According to our findings and the analysis of the chosen articles, the prospects and current advances of CAD/CAM technology are fascinating and are revolutionizing the field of dentistry. Even though researchers are excited, it is important to make sure that different materials have been tested and looked at well enough before making firm claims and choices to replace materials that have been made in the past. Based on previous research, it has been determined that the CAD/CAM methodology used in the dental field is the most popular method at the moment since it is quick, simple, and efficient. Since there are different kinds of CAD/CAM systems, it is very important to choose the right one and come up with a good plan for treating a patient.

Indexed as

analysiscad/camcomputer-aided designcomputer-aided manufacturingdentistryfuture of dentistrysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36561580
PMCPMC9767654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.