Comparative analyses of time efficiency and cost in fabricating fixed implant-supported prostheses in digital, hybrid, and conventional workflows: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Statement of problem. Economic considerations affect whether new technologies are adopted in dental practice. Limited evidence exists regarding the time and cost efficiency of different workflows for fabricating implant-supported restorations. Purpose. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the time and cost involved in fabricating fixed implant- supported prostheses using digital, hybrid, and conventional methods throughout the entire prosthetic treatment by analyzing both clinical and laboratory steps. Material and methods. A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA)-P 2015 guidelines. The methods and inclusion criteria were specified in a protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number CRD42023458734). The databases PubMed, Cochrane, and PROSPERO were searched using keywords: (Prosthodontic OR restorative dentistry OR denture) AND (CAD CAM OR Digital workflow OR Computer Dentistry OR Digital Design) AND (Economic OR cost OR Financial OR time efficiency). Two investigators selected articles independently. Results. A qualitative synthesis of 12 articles published from 2010 to 2023 showed that digital scans took less time than conventional impressions (P<.05) in 7 out of 9 articles. Additionally, 8 articles revealed significant reductions in laboratory working time with digital workflows, intermediate times with hybrid workflows, and longer times with conventional workflows (P<.001). Meta-analysis confirmed the time efficiency of digital scanning over conventional impressions (Hedges g=1.65, 95% CI [0.33, 2.98]) and a substantial reduction in laboratory time with digital workflows compared with other workflows (Hedges g=6.55, 95% CI [2.69; 10.42]). However, no significant difference was found in adjustment time between digital and other workflows (Hedges g=0.91, 95% CI [-0.72; 2.55]). Direct laboratory costs were observed to be higher in conventional workflows compared with hybrid or digital workflows, with hybrid workflows also showing elevated costs compared with digital workflows (P<.05). Conclusions. The digital workflow demonstrates potential benefits in reducing scan time, laboratory processing time, and direct laboratory costs for implant-supported restorations in partial edentulism. Further research is needed to validate these findings, particularly for long- span implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. (J Prosthet Dent 2025;133:689-712)