Is the digital workflow more efficient for manufacturing partial-coverage restorations? A systematic review

Abstract

Statement of problemA consensus on whether a fully digital workflow can replace conventional methods of manufacturing partial-coverage restorations is lacking. PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy, fit, and clinical outcomes of inlay, onlay, overlay, and endocrown restorations obtained with both digital and conventional workflows. Material and methodsThis study complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42021258696). Studies evaluating the accuracy, fit, and clinical outcomes of inlay, onlay, overlay, and endocrown restorations obtained with digital and conventional workflows were included from 5 databases searched in November 2022. The Checklist for Reporting Randomized Clinical Studies (ROB 2) and the Checklist for Reporting In vitro Studies (CRIS guidelines) were used to assess the risk of bias. ResultsTwenty-three studies were included in this review. Sixteen studies evaluated marginal and internal fit, 5 evaluated accuracy, 3 evaluated fracture resistance, and 1 evaluated long-term clinical performance. Although most studies reported acceptable clinical outcomes for both workflows, 11 studies showed better results with the conventional workflow, 10 with the digital workflow, and 2 reported that the outcomes of the workflows were similar. ConclusionsClinically acceptable values have been reported for the parameters evaluated in both digital and conventional workflows, and no consensus has been reached regarding the more efficient method.