In Vitro Accuracy of Digital Versus Conventional Workflows for Complete-Arch Implant- Supported Frameworks-A Scoping Review.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the available evidence on the accuracy of conventional and digital workflows for complete-arch implant-supported frameworks.

Materials and methods: This scoping review was conducted according to the five-stage framework of Arksey and O'Malley. A systematic literature search was performed adhering to the PRISMA guidelines to identify studies with a direct comparison of conventional and digital methods for the fabrication of complete-arch implant-supported frameworks. A total of 58 in vitro studies with a focus on edentulous arches with at least four implants published between 2000 and 2024 were included. The reported outcomes were examined to determine the value of a statistical analysis in estimating the cumulative workflow error from the individual errors at each stage.

Results: Evidence on the accuracy assessment of digital and conventional workflows for complete-arch implant-supported frameworks is available. However, studies with the same assessment methods and outcome units appear to be too heterogeneous to perform a statistical analysis of error accumulation. While there is no consensus in the impression and cast fabrication stage, digital techniques show superior accuracy for the fabrication of complete-arch implant-supported frameworks compared to conventional casting.

Conclusions: In vitro studies assessing the accuracy of entire workflows and classifying their outcomes regarding clinical relevance are lacking.