ReviewCureus2026
Clinical Effectiveness and Accuracy of Fully Digital Workflows Versus Conventional Methods in Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The transition from conventional analogue techniques to digital workflows is transforming implant dentistry. However, a comprehensive synthesis of comparative clinical evidence is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, accuracy, and patient-centred outcomes of fully digital versus conventional workflows for fabricating implant-supported restorations. This review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and prospectively registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized clinical studies comparing digital (intraoral scanning) and conventional (elastomeric impression) restorative workflows for single-unit or full-arch implant prostheses. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. The primary outcomes were time efficiency, accuracy/fit, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Secondary outcomes included biological and prosthetic complication rates. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using the Hartung-Knapp method, with heterogeneity assessed using the statistic. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Ten clinical studies (six RCTs, four non-randomized) met the inclusion criteria. Most RCTs demonstrated a low risk of bias, while non-randomized studies showed a moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed that digital workflows significantly reduced mean procedure time compared to conventional methods (mean difference (MD): -4.28 minutes; 95% CI: -8.40 to -0.16;
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.