Systematic Literature Review: Perbandingan Prostodonsia Konvensional dan Digital

Dwi Fitriani Adama; Nabila Aida Mortada

Dwi Fitriani Adama Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Muslim Indonesia
Nabila Aida Mortada Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Muslim Indonesia

Keywords: Prostodonsia digital, prostodonsia konvensional, CAD/CAM, intraoral scanner, digital workflow

Abstract

Pendahuluan: Teknologi digital dalam prostodonsia, seperti intraoral scanner, CAD/CAM, 3D printing, dan kecerdasan buatan, telah mengubah praktik klinis secara signifikan. Namun, teknik konvensional masih banyak digunakan dan memiliki beberapa keterbatasan sehingga diperlukan evaluasi perbandingan antara kedua pendekatan. Tujuan: Systematic literature review ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan prostodonsia konvensional dan digital berdasarkan akurasi, efisiensi klinis, hasil perawatan, serta kenyamanan pasien. Metode: Penelitian ini mengikuti pedoman PRISMA. Pencarian literatur dilakukan pada PubMed, Google Scholar, dan Crossref untuk artikel full-text berbahasa Inggris yang dipublikasikan antara tahun 2021–2026. Seleksi studi dilakukan berdasarkan kriteria PICOS dan dianalisis secara deskriptif-komparatif. Hasil: Sebanyak 17 studi disertakan. Prostodonsia digital umumnya menunjukkan akurasi lebih tinggi, efisiensi lebih baik, kualitas restorasi lebih baik, serta kepuasan pasien yang lebih tinggi. Namun, metode konvensional masih sebanding pada beberapa kasus, terutama restorasi full-arch. Kesimpulan: Prostodonsia digital memiliki keunggulan dalam efisiensi dan hasil klinis, meskipun pendekatan hibrida masih relevan dalam praktik klinis.

References

1. Huang T, Zheng H, Chen Z, Sun Q, Zhang L, Zhang F. CAD/CAM-guided versus manual crown preparation in fixed prosthodontics: a randomized controlled trial. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2025;35(9):1153–8.

2. Sandeep C, Afreen S, Kumar VB, Srujana PLN, Guntupalli S, Adavikatla S. Evaluation and comparison of interocclusal registration accuracy using digital intraoral scanners and conventional methods: an in vivo study. Cureus. 2025;17(8):e89266. doi:10.7759/cureus.89266.

3. Reich KM, Tatzber V, Skolka A, Piehslinger E, Lettner S, Kundi M, et al. A comparative study of digital and conventional occlusal indicators: accuracy and reliability of the T-Scan Novus, wax occlusogram, and articulating silk in clinical application. J Dent. 2025;156:105695. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105695.

4. Casucci A, Mangano F, Mangano C, Bollero R, Barlattani A, Cantatore G. Digital versus conventional complete dentures: clinical outcomes, masticatory performance, and cost-effectiveness after 6 months of follow-up. J Dent. 2025;155:105652. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105652.

5. Corsalini M, Barile G, Ranieri F, Morea E, Corsalini T, Capodiferro S, et al. Comparison between conventional and digital workflow in implant prosthetic rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. J Funct Biomater. 2024;15(6):149.

6. Song S, Gou X, Zhang H, Xu Y, Liu H. Motion-DSD: artificial intelligence-assisted dynamic frontal facial simulation of digital diagnostic waxing based on intraoral digital smile design. J Prosthodont Res. 2026. Epub ahead of print. doi:10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_25_00041.

7. Almadani GZ, Alhabib LT, Tola AW, Ghulam OA, BinDawas AA, Algarni AA. Conventional versus digital impressions: preferences and comfort level among prosthodontic patients. Open Dent J. 2025;19:e18742106397234. doi:10.2174/0118742106397234250712182711.

8. Kharat S, Dudhani SI, Kouser A, Subramanian P, Bhattacharjee D, Jhamb V. Exploring the impact of 3D printing technology on patient-specific prosthodontic rehabilitation: a comparative study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024;16(Suppl 1):S423–6. doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_643_.

9. Alam M, Chugh A, Kumar A, Rathee M, Jain P. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of anterior provisional restorations fabricated using conventional and digital techniques: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022;22(4):361–7.

10. Hajaj T, Veja I, Zaharia C, Lile IE, Rominu M, Sinescu C, et al. Evaluation of digital imaging accuracy among three intraoral scanners for full-arch implant rehabilitation. Diagnostics (Basel). 2026;16(1):25. doi:10.3390/diagnostics16010025.

11. Karaca SK, Akca K. Comparison of conventional and digital impression approaches for edentulous maxilla: clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:1378. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-05151-3.

12. Ohara K, Isshiki Y, Hoshi N, Ohno A, Kawanishi N, Nagashima S, et al. Patient satisfaction with conventional dentures versus digital dentures fabricated using 3D printing: a randomized crossover trial. J Prosthodont Res. 2022;66(4):623–9. doi:10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00048.

13. Ma Y, Guo YQ, Jiang L, Yu H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques in prosthodontics: a clinical study. J Prosthodont Res. 2023;67(4):633–40. doi:10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_22_00242.

14. Revell G, Simon B, Mennito A, Evans ZP, Renne W, Ludlow M, et al. Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(4):632–8.

15. Toser I, Veja I, Constantin GD, Cândea A, Faur AB, Lorinti AE, Jivănescu A. Comparison of conventional and digital workflows in prosthodontic treatment: a clinical study. J Clin Med. 2024;15(7):796. doi:10.3390/jcm15020796.

16. Khalid RR, Fatalla AA, Rawas MA, Johari Y, Beh YH, Abdullah JY. The impact of adding carbon nanotubes to 3D printed denture base resin on denture diametral compression and tensile strength. J Int Dent Med Res. 2021;17(4):1517.

17. Bhargav MVG, Aneja S, Rani KD, Kollu S, Dutta D, Agrawal N. Role of artificial intelligence in transforming prosthodontics and oral implantology: in vivo study. Bioinformation. 2025;21(5):1275–8. doi: 10.6026/973206300211275.