Comparative Analysis of Digital Dentistry and Conventional Techniques in Implantology a Systematic Review of Clinical Success and Patient Outcomes

Abstract

Objectives: To compare digital dentistry with conventional techniques in implantology based on clinical success rate, accuracy, patient satisfaction, and overall treatment outcoms.

Methods: A total of 412 pertinent publications were found after a comprehensive search across four databases. 68 full-text publications were examined after duplicates were eliminated using Rayyan QCRI and relevance was checked; seven studies finally satisfied the requirements for inclusion.

Results: We included seven studies with a total of 449 patients, 483 dental implants, and 196 (43.6%) were males. The majority of the studies revealed that digital workflows always had higher patient satisfaction with the increased comfort, reduced chair time, and better procedural efficiency. Though there were some reports on no distinct preference, in general, digital impressions were preferred for being less invasive and convenient. Clinical advantages included the improved accuracy of the digital method, smooth workflow, and fewer visits by the patient, especially in single-implant restorations and full-arch immediate loading cases. However, conventional techniques remained a good alternative with comparable outcomes in certain contexts.

Conclusion: Digital workflows enhance implantology with improved accuracy, efficiency, and patient satisfaction, making them valuable in modern dentistry. While conventional methods remain reliable, digital techniques are particularly beneficial for complex, precision-demanding cases. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and increasing accessibility to digital tools, ensuring continued advancements in patient care.