Comparative Evaluation of Digital and Conventional Workflows for the Fabrication of Multi-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: An Empty Review.

Abstract

<b>Objectives:</b> This study aimed to do a comprehensive systematic review on the comparison of digital and conventional workflows regarding prosthetic outcomes, accuracy of implant impressions, framework passivity and fit, and clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> The EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up until April 2020. <b>Results:</b> No in-vivo article was found to compare full digital and conventional workflows regarding the accuracy of implant impressions, passivity and fit of frameworks, and prosthetic outcomes. There was no study to investigate full digital and conventional workflows for clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations. <b>Conclusion:</b> This empty review highlights the need for further research to compare full digital and conventional workflows for implant-supported restorations.