Abstract
Objectives: 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. Materials and Methods: The EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up until April 2020. Results: 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. Conclusion: This empty review highlights the need for further research to compare full digital and conventional workflows for implant-supported restorations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
