Clinical efficiency and patient preference of digital and conventional workflow for single implant crowns using immediate and regular digital impression: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether digital workflow gives better results than the conventional one in the single implant crowns, when analyzing the impression time, patient preference, time efficiency, and adjustment time. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched and supplemented via hand search up to June 19, 2019. Only clinical trials assessing conventional versus digital workflows for single implant crowns were included. Impression time was evaluated using random effects meta-analysis, while patient preference, adjustment time, and time efficiency were reported descriptively. RESULTS: Among 1,334 publications identified, ten studies were included. The random effects models revealed statistically significant reduction in time in the digital impression group when compared to the conventional group by the mean meta-analysis (MD: 8.22 [95% CI: 5.48, 10.96]). Analysis from immediate digital impression versus conventional (MD: 3.84 [95% CI: 3.30, 4.39]) and regular digital impression versus conventional (MD:10.67 [95% CI: 5.70, 15.65]) showed statistically significant reduction in time on using the digital impression. Impression time in the digital process ranged between 6 min 39 s and 20 min, whereas for conventional, it was between 11.7 and 28.47 min. Patients showed greater preference for digital impression. Adjustment time in the digital process ranged between 1.96 and 14 min, whereas for conventional, it was between 3.02 and 12 min. Time efficiency in the digital process ranged between 36.8 and 185.4 min, whereas for conventional, it was between 55.6 and 332 min. CONCLUSION: The digital workflow has demonstrated better clinical efficiency considering impression time, patient preference, and time efficiency. According to the adjustment time, different results were presented.

Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Limited evidence is available comparing digital versus conventional impressions from the point of view of patient preference. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the available literature related to patient-centered outcomes for digital versus conventional impression techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The databases Medline, Cochrane, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase were electronically searched and complemented by hand searches. All published papers available on the databases from 1955 to July 2016 were considered for title and abstract analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2943 articles were initially identified through database searches, of which only 5 met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. Four studies comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between conventional and digital impressions revealed that the digital technique was more comfortable and caused less anxiety and sensation of nausea. Only 1 study reported no difference between the techniques regardless of patient comfort. Two studies reported a shorter procedure for the conventional technique, whereas 3 studies reported a shorter procedure for the digital technique. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of clinical studies addressing patient outcomes regarding digital prosthodontic treatments was observed among the included articles. However, current evidence suggests that patients are more likely to prefer the digital workflow than the conventional techniques.