ArticleBrazilian oral research2026
Digital era in oral rehabilitation: a scoping review of trends and implications for clinical practice.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 2026. 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.
- Evidence-based approaches for advancing clinical research and practice: dentistry beyond the myth.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review mapped the evidence on the clinical applicability and implications of digital workflows for fixed and removable full-arch rehabilitation in completely edentulous patients, focusing on workflow-related operational parameters and clinician-reported outcomes. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR and was registered on the Open Science Framework. The research question was "What is the current evidence on digital workflows for full-arch rehabilitations and their implications for clinical practice?". A search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase, supplemented by grey literature and reference screening. The inclusion criteria were clinical studies and reviews focusing on the clinical implications of workflow-related performance indicators and the clinician's perceptions, considering the digital workflow. A descriptive analysis was conducted in terms of clinical application and key findings regarding accuracy, time-efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and clinician satisfaction. A total of 40 studies were included. The implant-level impressions demonstrated values for 3D linear deviations within clinically acceptable thresholds (up to 200 μm) and traditional methods remained feasible for tissue impressions due to the highest discrepancies found in the peripheral regions. The digital workflow was time- and cost-saving, ranging from 27.17% to 75.10% and 9.21% to 39.49%, respectively. The digital workflow was accurate for implant-level impressions. Evidence suggests limitations in peripheral and movable mucosa capture; however, certain protocols may improve reliability, and conventional methods remain important in specific clinical contexts. Moreover, it's time- and cost-efficient for interventions in completely edentulous patients, but the evidence remains scarce and inconclusive for clinician satisfaction.
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.