ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2026
The Impact of Digital Workflows on the Design of Fixed Prostheses: A Systematic Literature Review.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The digital transformation in dentistry has profoundly changed the design protocols for fixed, tooth-supported prostheses. The integration of computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technologies raises the question of their effectiveness compared to conventional methods. The objective of this systematic review is to analyze, through a review of the literature, the impact of the digital workflow on the design of fixed prostheses in comparison with the conventional workflow. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases over a 10-year period (2016-2026). The following inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied: in vivo and in vitro studies focusing on tooth-supported fixed prostheses that evaluated either digital impressions or a fully digital workflow, comparing it to a conventional workflow. Studies were selected following the PRISMA chronology (identification, selection, eligibility, inclusion). Extracted data included: study characteristics, sample type, objectives, evaluated outcomes, quantitative results, measurement methods, and conclusions. Results: A total of 11 studies were included in this review. The analysis of the results highlights significant heterogeneity in methodologies and evaluation criteria, particularly regarding impression accuracy, marginal adaptation, chairside time, and reproducibility. Overall, the available data do not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the superiority of the digital workflow over the conventional workflow. However, some studies suggest comparable, or even superior, performance of the digital workflow under specific conditions. Conclusion: Digital design of fixed prostheses offers an alternative to traditional conventional methods. However, the lack of consensus and the heterogeneity of current data do not allow for the confirmation of its superiority. Standardized long-term clinical results are needed to confirm these findings and clarify the optimal indications for the digital workflow.
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.