SynthesisJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
A systematic review on patient perceptions and clinician-reported outcomes when comparing digital and analog workflows for complete dentures.
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.
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.
- Advances in 3D Printing for Removable Prosthetics-Insights and Perspectives.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Digital era in oral rehabilitation: a scoping review of trends and implications for clinical practice.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing and CAD/CAM Milling in Prosthodontics: A Scoping Review of Key Metrics Towards Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare digitally fabricated complete dentures to conventionally fabricated dentures using patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures.
methodsThis review was structured according to PRISMA guidelines with the protocol registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024526069). An electronic search of the databases with a defined search strategy was completed within PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science from January 2000 to March 2024. Grey literature and article references were searched. Articles were screened by title and abstract, and the remaining articles were screened by full-text review. Articles accepted for inclusion were subjected to a risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane Collaboration tools (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I).
resultsFrom an initial pool of 704 articles, 15 studies met the selection criteria, of which the majority were published within the past 3 years. Within the included studies, there was inconsistency in the assessment methods of patient- and clinician-reported outcomes, making it challenging to draw definitive conclusions. Generally, digital dentures had superior cost-effectiveness and prosthesis fabrication time. Patient satisfaction and denture quality were not consistently improved with digital technology.
conclusionsStudies showed indications of patient satisfaction with digital and conventional dentures. Digital technology may enhance clinical workflows. A trend emerged that milled dentures performed better than printed dentures. Clinicians adopting digital technology into removable prosthodontics may have a learning curve to overcome, and they should consider the patient-clinician relationship in addition to clinical outcomes to achieve patient satisfaction. Additional studies with standardized tools for assessing patient satisfaction are required to enable meaningful comparisons between digital and conventional workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.