ReviewCureus2025
Digital Smile Design and Patient-Centered Outcomes in Esthetic Restorative Dentistry: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital Smile Design (DSD) has become an increasingly valuable tool in esthetic restorative dentistry, offering digital visualization, improved communication, and enhanced precision during treatment planning. This systematic review evaluated the influence of DSD on patient-centered outcomes, including satisfaction, esthetic perception, quality of life, and psychosocial impact. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library was performed from inception to August 2025, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were eligible if they assessed DSD within esthetic restorative procedures and reported patient-centered outcomes. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and qualitative analyses from diverse clinical settings. Sample sizes ranged from small qualitative cohorts to large randomized trials. Across all included studies, DSD consistently improved patient satisfaction, treatment acceptance, communication, and perceived predictability compared with conventional approaches. Quantitative evidence demonstrated significantly higher satisfaction scores and superior esthetic and functional ratings in DSD-guided treatments. Studies with follow-up data also reported stable long-term outcomes and improved self-confidence among patients. Despite these promising results, the evidence base remains limited by heterogeneity in study designs, varied outcome measures, and small sample sizes in some studies. Overall, DSD appears to enhance patient-centered outcomes in esthetic restorative dentistry, but further high-quality, longitudinal research is needed to validate its long-term clinical and psychosocial benefits.
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.