Digital workflow feasibility for the fabrication of intraoral maxillofacial prosthetics after surgical resection: a systematic literature review

Srivastava G 1 , Padhiary SK 2 , Mohanty N 3 , Patil PG 4 , Panda S 5 , Cobo-Vazquez C 6 Show all authors , Çakmak G 7 , Molinero-Mourelle P 7

Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, India. gunjansrivastava@soa.ac.in
  • 2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan Deemed to be Univesity, Bhubaneswar, India
  • 3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, India
  • 4 Department of Prosthodontics, Division of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 5 Department of Periodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan, University, Bhubaneswar, India
  • 6 Department of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • 7 Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Acta Odontol Scand, 2024 Jun 19;83:392-403.
PMID: 38895776 DOI: 10.2340/aos.v83.40870

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current evidence of digital workflow feasibility based on the data acquisition methods and the software tools used to fabricate intraoral prostheses for patients with partial or total maxillary and mandibular defects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science using a combination of relevant keywords: digital workflow, digital designing, computer-assisted design-computer aided manufacturing, 3D printing, maxillectomy, and mandibulectomy. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed.

RESULTS: From a total of 542 references, 33 articles were selected, including 25 on maxillary prostheses and 8 on mandibular prostheses. The use of digital workflows was limited to one or two steps of the fabrication of the prostheses, and only four studies described a complete digital workflow. The most preferred method for data acquisition was intraoral scanning with or without a cone beam computed tomography combination.

CONCLUSION: Currently, the fabrication process of maxillofacial prostheses requires combining digital and conventional methods. Simplifying the data acquisition methods and providing user-friendly and affordable software may encourage clinicians to use the digital workflow more frequently for patients requiring maxillofacial prostheses.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications