Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38895776›Full record

SynthesisActa odontologica Scandinavica2024

Digital workflow feasibility for the fabrication of intraoral maxillofacial prosthetics after surgical resection: a systematic literature review.

Gunjan Srivastava, Subrat Kumar Padhiary, Neeta Mohanty, Pravinkumar G Patil, Saurav Panda, Carlos Cobo-Vazquez, Gülce Çakmak, Pedro Molinero-Mourelle

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
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.

Gunjan SrivastavaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, India. gunjansrivastava@soa.ac.in.
Subrat Kumar PadhiaryDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan Deemed to be Univesity, Bhubaneswar, India.
Neeta MohantyDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, India.
Pravinkumar G PatilDepartment of Prosthodontics, Division of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Saurav PandaDepartment of Periodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan, University, Bhubaneswar, India.
Carlos Cobo-VazquezDepartment of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Gülce ÇakmakDepartment of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Pedro Molinero-MourelleDepartment of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the current evidence of digital workflow feasibility based on the data acquisition methods and the software tools used to fabricate intraoral prostheses for patients with partial or total maxillary and mandibular defects. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn electronic search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science using a combination of relevant keywords: digital workflow, digital designing, computer-assisted design-computer aided manufacturing, 3D printing, maxillectomy, and mandibulectomy. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed.

resultsFrom a total of 542 references, 33 articles were selected, including 25 on maxillary prostheses and 8 on mandibular prostheses. The use of digital workflows was limited to one or two steps of the fabrication of the prostheses, and only four studies described a complete digital workflow. The most preferred method for data acquisition was intraoral scanning with or without a cone beam computed tomography combination.

conclusionCurrently, the fabrication process of maxillofacial prostheses requires combining digital and conventional methods. Simplifying the data acquisition methods and providing user-friendly and affordable software may encourage clinicians to use the digital workflow more frequently for patients requiring maxillofacial prostheses.

Indexed as

Maxillofacial ProsthesisWorkflowComputer-Aided DesignFeasibility StudiesHumansPrinting, Three-DimensionalProsthesis DesignSoftware

Identifiers

PMID38895776
PMCPMC11302490

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.