ReviewAustralian dental journal2025
Digital Workflows in Prosthodontics.
Review in Australian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Clinical Practices and Digital Technology Adoption in Provisional Prosthodontics: A Cross-Sectional Survey Among Romanian Dental Practitioners.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Accuracy of face scan-based virtual facebow records: A comparison between two registration methods.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- [Current applications and future perspectives of automation technologies and devices in oral diagnosis and treatment].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026Review
- Feasibility of the Impression Reference (IR) Technique for Open-Flap Immediate Loading Full-Arch Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Maxilla: A Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Characterization of Digital Jaw Tracking Values in Prosthetic Rehabilitations: A Case Series.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Accuracy of the Emergence Profile of Dental Implant Restorations using different gingival mask techniques.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Prosthodontic Rehabilitation as Essential Care Within India's District Health System: A Narrative Review and Conceptual Framework.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid advancement of scanning technologies, design software, and manufacturing techniques has led to the maturation of digital workflows in prosthodontics over the past few decades. Initially perceived as alternatives to analogue workflows, digital workflows now offer significant advantages in diagnosis, treatment planning, communication, and prosthesis design and fabrication. The growing demand for efficient, predictable, aesthetic, and outcome-driven prosthodontic treatments has led to increasing adoption of digital workflows. This integration has transformed each step of prosthodontic treatment, resulting in three digital workflows: laboratory, clinical, and combined clinical-laboratory workflows. Although most prosthodontic treatments can now be executed digitally, a universally applicable digital workflow is yet to be established. Contrary to analogue workflows, digital workflows continue to evolve rapidly, with significant improvements anticipated in the near future that may establish them as the mainstream approach in prosthodontics. This review article aims to: (1) illustrate the importance of digital workflows in modern prosthodontics, (2) discuss available digital workflows in relation to different areas of prosthodontics, and (3) explore how recent advancements in digital dentistry are likely to shape the future of prosthodontics.
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.