Clinical and patient-centered outcomes of digitally and conventionally fabricated removable partial denture frameworks: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of digitally and conventionally fabricated removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks. METHODS This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. An electronic search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Clinical studies comparing clinical outcomes and/or PROMs of digitally and conventionally fabricated RPD frameworks, with no restrictions on publication year or language, were included. Studies involving other types of oral rehabilitation or those without full-text availability were excluded. RESULTS From 863 studies identified, 14 were included in this review. Clinical outcomes assessed included adaptation, periodontal health, masticatory efficiency, denture stomatitis, weight, success, and placement rates, adjustment time, stability, number of framework remakes, and components requiring adjustment. PROMs included patient satisfaction, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), and patient preference. No significant difference in rest adaptation was observed between conventional and digital workflows (p = 0.070). Some studies suggested that digitally fabricated RPD frameworks may be associated with reduced bone loss, improved masticatory efficiency, and fewer incidences of denture stomatitis. Regarding PROMs, the digital workflow resulted in higher patient satisfaction, whereas OHRQoL and patient preference were similar between techniques. CONCLUSIONS Digitally fabricated RPD frameworks showed satisfactory clinical outcomes and PROMs and may represent a viable alternative to conventional methods.