ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and Digital Techniques for Maxillofacial Prosthesis Fabrication: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral rehabilitation of patients with cancer: challenges following surgical resection.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Review
- Review
- Assessment of psychosocial reintegration following prosthetic rehabilitation using Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale: A case series.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review objectively evaluates the accuracy and precision of digital impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis fabrication and compares them with conventional methods. It also explores advancements such as computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), 3D scanning, and smartphone-integrated stereophotogrammetry. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, Cochrane, and Google Scholar until February 2025 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing digital and conventional impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis fabrication were included. The qualitative analysis was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Data extraction focused on accuracy, precision, clinical outcomes, and fabrication efficiency. Due to methodological heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was conducted. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Digital workflows, including intraoral scanning, photogrammetry, and rapid prototyping, demonstrated accuracy comparable to conventional methods. Smartphone-integrated scanning emerged as a cost-effective alternative. However, variations in study designs, scanning techniques, and software limited direct comparisons. This systematic review compares conventional and digital impression techniques for the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses. Digital workflows offer improved accuracy and efficiency, but evidence is limited by heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and technical limitations, highlighting the need for further research. Digital impression techniques offer a viable alternative to conventional methods, enhancing accuracy, efficiency, and accessibility, and potentially revolutionizing the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses, particularly in resource-limited settings.
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.