ArticleBioinformation2024
Digital versus traditional workflows for fabrication of implant-supported rehabilitation: A systematic review.
Article in Bioinformation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the global research landscape and knowledge structure of robotic-assisted dental, oral and maxillofacial surgery: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensional Printing and Personalized Bioceramic Scaffolds for Dental and Maxillofacial Applications: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Treatment Planning in an Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation in the Esthetic Zone.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes of Digital Versus Conventional Impressions for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating the influence of prompt formulation on the reliability and repeatability of ChatGPT in implant-supported prostheses.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional analog methods were extensively followed for creating implant-supported prostheses. The advent of digital technologies has replaced these methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the clinical efficiency and patient acceptance associated with digital and traditional workflows in implant-supported rehabilitation. Multiple electronic databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and mid-2023. The protocol number of the study was PROSPERO CRD CRD42023471411. Two independent reviewers selected studies, evaluated data, and assessed the risk of bias. A fixed effect model was used for meta-analysis, and summary effects were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. The pooled values for included studies in the meta-analysis were as follows: taste (-4.38 [-6.56, -2.20]), anxiety (-0.83 [-1.57, -0.10]), pain (-1.35 [-2.75, 0.05]), and discomfort (-1.28 [-3.23, 0.67]), indicating reduced complaints for these domains with digital methods (p < 0.05). The digital techniques provided better patient satisfaction and time efficiency. Digital workflows in implant-supported rehabilitation showed better patient satisfaction and reduced procedural discomfort, substantiating a paradigm shift towards digital methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.