DIGITAL WORKFLOW VERSUS CONVENTIONAL WORKFLOW FOR FULL-ARCH IMPLANT SUPPORTED PROSTHESES: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FIT, PATIENT SATISFACTION, AND MAINTENANCE OVER 3 YEARS

Abstract

Background: Digital workflows have increasingly been adopted in implant dentistry; however, their accuracy and clinical performance compared to conventional workflows in full-arch implant-supported prostheses remain debated. Objective: To systematically evaluate and compare digital versus conventional workflows regarding accuracy, clinical outcomes, and workflow efficiency in full-arch implant-supported prostheses. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to December 2025. Ten studies meeting predefined inclusion criteria were analyzed, including clinical, retrospective, and in vitro studies. Data on 3D deviation, implant configuration, scanning systems, and clinical outcomes were extracted and synthesized narratively. Results: Digital workflows demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy, with 3D deviations ranging from 88 ± 24 µm to 162 ± 77 µm in clinical studies. In vitro studies showed significantly lower deviations for digital techniques, with reductions up to 88% compared to conventional methods (P < 0.001). However, digital accuracy decreased significantly in long-span full-arch cases (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between maxillary and mandibular arches or between workflows in clinical settings. Conclusion: Digital workflows provide comparable accuracy to conventional methods and offer advantages in efficiency and patient experience. However, conventional techniques remain more reliable in complex full-arch cases involving multiple implants.