The progress of digital technologies in dental prosthodontics is fast and increasingly accurate, allowing practitioners to simplify their daily work. These technologies aim to substitute conventional techniques progressively, but their real efficiency and predictability are still under debate. Many systematic reviews emphasize the lack of clinical RCTs that compare digital and traditional workflow. To address this evidence, we conducted a three-arm designed clinical RCT, which compares fully digital, combined digital, and analogic and fully analog workflows. We aimed to compare the clinical properties of each workflow regarding interproximal (IC) and occlusal contact (OC), marginal fit, impression time (IT), and patient satisfaction through a VAS scale. In total, 72 patients were included in the study. The IC and OC of the digital workflow were better than the others (p < 0.001), which obtained similar results. No difference between implant–abutment fit was observed (p = 0.5966). The IT was shorter in the digital workflow than the others (p < 0.001), which were similar. Patient satisfaction was higher in the digital workflow than in the conventional one. Despite the limitations, this study’s results support better accuracy and patient tolerance of digital workflow than of conventional techniques, suggesting it as a viable alternative to the latter when performed by clinicians experienced in digital dentistry
Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Massimo Corsalini;Giuseppe Barile;Saverio Capodiferro;
2024-01-01
Abstract
The progress of digital technologies in dental prosthodontics is fast and increasingly accurate, allowing practitioners to simplify their daily work. These technologies aim to substitute conventional techniques progressively, but their real efficiency and predictability are still under debate. Many systematic reviews emphasize the lack of clinical RCTs that compare digital and traditional workflow. To address this evidence, we conducted a three-arm designed clinical RCT, which compares fully digital, combined digital, and analogic and fully analog workflows. We aimed to compare the clinical properties of each workflow regarding interproximal (IC) and occlusal contact (OC), marginal fit, impression time (IT), and patient satisfaction through a VAS scale. In total, 72 patients were included in the study. The IC and OC of the digital workflow were better than the others (p < 0.001), which obtained similar results. No difference between implant–abutment fit was observed (p = 0.5966). The IT was shorter in the digital workflow than the others (p < 0.001), which were similar. Patient satisfaction was higher in the digital workflow than in the conventional one. Despite the limitations, this study’s results support better accuracy and patient tolerance of digital workflow than of conventional techniques, suggesting it as a viable alternative to the latter when performed by clinicians experienced in digital dentistryI documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
