Pages: 35-42

Abstract

Digital technologies such as intraoral scanners, IOS, CAD/CAM, and 3D printing are increasingly used in fixed prosthodontics to replace traditional workflows. This narrative review assessed works published between 2020 and 2025 on the efficiency, accuracy, outcomes, and survival of restorations, and how the restorations were fabricated. Research indicates that IOS systems and Impressions Trays systems offer accuracy and precision comparable to, or superior to, elastomeric impressions for single tooth crowns and short-span prostheses; but, they are less reliable for long-span and complete mouth restorations. CAD/CAM systems used to crown patients from digital impressions provide crowns with clinically acceptable marginal fits. CAD/CAM milled crowns of zirconia have been found to have a slightly closer fit than 3D printed restorations. Digital workflows reduce chairside time by 30-45% and are highly preferred by patients as the procedures are lower in discomfort and gagging. Clinical studies show more than 90% survival rates at 5 years, with monolithic zirconia performing very well. There remains, however, a lack of long-term and full arch reliability on digital fixed prosthodontics. Digital fixed prosthodontics is a more efficient and patient-friendly approach to traditional fixed prosthodontics.

Keywords: Digital dentistry, CAD/CAM, 3D printing, Prosthodontics

References

1. Rutkūnas V, Auškalnis L, Pletkus J. Intraoral scanners in implant prosthodontics. A narrative review. J Dent. 2024;148:105152.
2. Siqueira R, Galli M, Chen Z, Mendonça G, Meirelles L, Wang HL, et al. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(12):6517-31.
3. Mahato M, Hota S, Jain A, Dutta D, Bhushan P, Raut A, et al. Comparison of conventional and digital workflows in the fabrication of fixed prostheses: a systematic review. Cureus. 2024;16(6):e61764.
4. Almadani GZ, Alhabib LT, Tola AW, Ghulam OA, BinDawas AA, Algarni AA. Conventional vs. digital impressions: preferences and comfort level among prosthodontic patients. Open Dent J. 2025;19(1).
5. Zarbakhsh A, Jalalian E, Samiei N, Mahgoli MH, Ghane HK. Accuracy of digital impression taking using an intraoral scanner versus the conventional technique. Front Dent. 2021;18:6.
6. Park JS, Alshehri YF, Kruger E, Villata L. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions in partially dentate patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2025;160:105918.
7. Kaitatzidou A, Chalazoniti A, Faggion CM, Bakopoulou A, Barbosa-Liz DM, Giannakopoulos NN. Digital scans versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: an overview of systematic reviews. J Prosthet Dent. 2024.
8. Pesce P, Nicolini P, Caponio VC, Zecca PA, Canullo L, Isola G, et al. Accuracy of full-arch intraoral scans versus conventional impression: a systematic review with a meta-analysis and a proposal to standardise the analysis of the accuracy. J Clin Med. 2024;14(1):71.
9. El-Refay HM, Abdelaziz MS, Cheta NM, Abdallah MF. The accuracy of digital impression with different intraoral scanners on maxillary on four implants: an in vitro study. BMC Res Notes. 2025;18(1):186.
10. Gehrke P, Rashidpour M, Sader R, Weigl P. A systematic review of factors impacting intraoral scanning accuracy in implant dentistry with emphasis on scan bodies. Int J Implant Dent. 2024;10(1):20.
11. Shetty PS, Gangurde AP, Chauhan MR, Jaiswal NV, Salian PR, Singh V. Accuracy of the digital implant impression with splinted and non-splinted intraoral scan bodies: a systematic review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2025;25(1):3-12.
12. Seshan RR, Karthikeyan HR, Rajan RM, Rajakumaran A, Varadan P, Gopal R. Comparative evaluation of the marginal fit of computer-aided-design computer-aided-manufacturing fabricated crowns from direct and indirect digital impression–A systematic review. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2024;27(2):140-5.
13. Manisha J, Srivastava G, Das SS, Tabarak N, Choudhury GK. Accuracy of single-unit ceramic crown fabrication after digital versus conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2023;23(2):105-11.
14. Cioloca Holban C, Tatarciuc M, Vitalariu AM, Vasluianu RI, Antohe M, Diaconu DA, et al. Three-dimensional printing and CAD/CAM milling in prosthodontics: a scoping review of key metrics towards future perspectives. J Clin Med. 2025;14(14):4837.
15. Hung Lam T, Minh Cuong P, Hoang Nam N, Huyen Bao Tran V, Viet H. Enhanced patient satisfaction with digital impressions using 3shape TRIOS 3 move scanner for single-implant crowns. Appl Sci. 2025;15(6):2881.
16. Lemos CA, Verri FR, de Luna Gomes JM, Junior JF, Miyashita E, Mendonça G, et al. Survival and prosthetic complications of monolithic ceramic implant-supported single crowns and fixed partial dentures: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal Prosthet Dent. 2024;132(6):1237-49.
17. Saravi B, Vollmer A, Hartmann M, Lang G, Kohal RJ, Boeker M, et al. Clinical performance of CAD/CAM all-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials. 2021;14(10):2672.
18. Hashemi AM, Hasanzadeh M, Khraisat A, Alikhasi M. Comparative evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations: an empty review. Front Dent. 2024;21:20.
19. Jain S, Sayed ME, Shetty M, Alqahtani SM, Al Wadei MH, Gupta SG, et al. Physical and mechanical properties of 3D-printed provisional crowns and fixed dental prosthesis resins compared to CAD/CAM milled and conventional provisional resins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14(13):2691. doi:10.3390/polym14132691
20. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26(3):101-21.
21. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):27.
22. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687-94.
23. Lim JH, Mangal U, Nam NE, Choi SH, Shim JS, Kim JE. A comparison of accuracy of different dental restorative materials between intraoral scanning and conventional impression-taking: an in vitro study. Materials. 2021;14(8):2060.
24. Tabesh M, Nejatidanesh F, Savabi G, Davoudi A, Savabi O, Mirmohammadi H. Marginal adaptation of zirconia complete-coverage fixed dental restorations made from digital scans or conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(4):603-10.
25. Hasanzade M, Aminikhah M, Afrashtehfar KI, Alikhasi M. Marginal and internal adaptation of single crowns and fixed dental prostheses by using digital and conventional workflows: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(3):360-8.
26. Alammar A, Kois JC, Revilla‐León M, Att W. Additive manufacturing technologies: current status and future perspectives. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(S1):4-12.
27. Moon W, Kim S, Lim BS, Park YS, Kim RJ, Chung SH. Dimensional accuracy evaluation of temporary dental restorations with different 3D printing systems. Materials. 2021;14(6):1487.