Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and Digital Techniques for Maxillofacial Prosthesis Fabrication: A Systematic...

This systematic review objectively evaluates the accuracy and precision of digital impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis fabrication and compares them with conventional methods. It also explores advancements such as computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), 3D scanning, and smartphone-integrated stereophotogrammetry. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, Cochrane, and Google Scholar until February 2025 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing digital and conventional impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis fabrication were included. The qualitative analysis was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Data extraction focused on accuracy, precision, clinical outcomes, and fabrication efficiency. Due to methodological heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was conducted. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Digital workflows, including intraoral scanning, photogrammetry, and rapid prototyping, demonstrated accuracy comparable to conventional methods. Smartphone-integrated scanning emerged as a cost-effective alternative. However, variations in study designs, scanning techniques, and software limited direct comparisons. This systematic review compares conventional and digital impression techniques for the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses. Digital workflows offer improved accuracy and efficiency, but evidence is limited by heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and technical limitations, highlighting the need for further research. Digital impression techniques offer a viable alternative to conventional methods, enhancing accuracy, efficiency, and accessibility, and potentially revolutionizing the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses, particularly in resource-limited settings.