SynthesisJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Cost-efficiency of digital versus conventional workflow for removable complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-efficiency of digital versus conventional workflow for removable complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Pooled it
- Hybrid Digital Workflow for Accurate Distal Extension Reproduction in Free-End Removable Dental Prosthesis: A Technical Report.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Digital era in oral rehabilitation: a scoping review of trends and implications for clinical practice.Brazilian oral research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the cost-efficiency of digitally designed and manufactured removable complete dentures (RCDs) with conventionally fabricated RCDs through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsA comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus up to February 10, 2025. Eligible studies included clinical trials and cohort studies comparing cost-related outcomes of digital and conventional RCD workflows. Primary outcomes were laboratory, clinical, and total costs; secondary outcomes included the number of treatment sessions. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Risk of bias was evaluated using standardized tools.
resultsFour retrospective studies and one prospective study, including 184 patients, met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences were observed between digital and conventional workflows in laboratory costs (mean difference [MD]: -239.77 (2025 USD); p = 0.1063), clinical costs (MD: 74.39 (2025 USD); p = 0.4514), total costs (MD: -357.76 (2025 USD); p = 0.2577), or treatment sessions (MD: -1.47; p = 0.3514). Operator experience significantly influenced clinical costs (p < 0.0001) and the number of sessions (p = 0.0001).
conclusionWithin the limitations of the available evidence, digital and conventional workflows for RCD fabrication demonstrated comparable cost-efficiency. Although digital workflows may reduce the number of sessions when performed by experienced clinicians, the current evidence is insufficient to establish a clear cost-efficiency advantage.
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.