DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.191908.1 ISSN: 2046-1402

CLINICAL PERFORMANCE AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES OF CONVENTIONAL, SIMPLIFIED, AND DIGITAL COMPLETE DENTURES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Syafira Arieffah, Muslita Indrasari, Lindawati S. Kusdhany
Show PDF Cite
Background Edentulism remains a significant global public health concern, particularly among older adults. It is projected to increase and demand efficient and clinically effective rehabilitative strategies. While conventional complete dentures remain the established standard, simplified and digital (CAD/CAM) fabrication workflows have emerged as viable alternatives. No systematic review has comprehensively compared the clinical performance and patient-reported outcomes across all three approaches. Methods This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines using the PICO framework and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261375571). Electronic searches were conducted across PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies published between January 2016 and March 2026. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies comparing conventional, simplified, and digital complete denture fabrication in fully edentulous patients were included. Methodological quality was appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools for RCTs and cohort studies. The findings were synthesized descriptively. Results Of 570 records identified, 22 studies (14 RCTs, 8 nRCTs) were included. Clinical performance, encompassing denture quality, masticatory function, and occlusal parameters, was comparable across fabrication methods. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life showed no statistically significant differences between groups. Digital and simplified workflows consistently required fewer clinical appointments (2-4 vs. 5-6 visits), reduced chair time by 23–60%, and lowered laboratory costs compared to conventional fabrication. Milled CAD/CAM dentures required fewer post-insertion adjustments than 3D-printed alternatives. Risk of bias was low in 36.37%, moderate in 45.45%, and high in 18.18% of studies. The main limitation of RCTs was the inability to blind, while nRCTs were limited by inadequate control of confounding. Conclusions Digital and simplified complete denture fabrication methods are clinically equivalent to conventional methods in terms of denture quality and patient satisfaction, while offering measurable advantages in workflow efficiency and cost. Clinicians may adopt these approaches as evidence-based alternatives to conventional fabrication, guided by clinical context and patient needs.

More from our Archive