|
| Authors | Study design | RPD fabrication | Assessment method | Follow-up period | Outcome |
| Study | Control |
|
| Ye et al. [13] | In vivo, clinical trial | CAD and SLM techniques | LWT | Visual inspection and silicone fit checker | Nil | Clinically acceptable fit with CAD and SLM techniques |
| Almufleh et al. [14] | In vivo, cross over clinical trial | Period 1: casting and CAD/CAM laser sintered
Period 2: CAD/CAM laser sintered | Period 1: laser sintered and casting
Period 2: casting only | Nine-item based questionnaire | 1, 2, and 4 weeks | Patient satisfaction was high with CAD/CAM sintering laser techniques |
| Bajunaid et al. [15] | In vitro, clinical trial | SLM technique | LWT | Silicone fit checker | Nil | The fit was accurate with SLM technique |
| Maryod et al. [16] | In vivo, crossover clinical trial | CAD/CAM | Conventional RPD | Digital force meter analysis | 1 month and 3 months | CAD/CAM denture had higher retention |
| Arnold et al. [17] | In vitro, clinical trial | CAD/CAM and SLM | LWT | Light microscopy and stability check | Nil | Improved fit with CAD/CAM technique. SLM framework had discrepancies |
| Soltanzadeh et al. [18] | In vitro, clinical trial | CAD printing | LWT | Visual inspection | Nil | The conventional RPD framework was accurate |
| Tregerman et al. [19] | In vivo, clinical trial | Intra oral scanning SLM | Conventional impression, LWT, and casting | Yes/no rater scale by 02 general dentists and 03 prosthodontist | Nil | The complete digital method of RPD framework was superior |
| Chen et al. [20] | In vitro, clinical trial | SLM | LWT | Silicone fit checker | Nil | Fit and accuracy of SLM was accurate in small span denture base and retainer frameworks, while conventional RPD in large spans. |
| Honqqiang et al. [21] | In vitro, clinical trial | PEEK and CAM/CAM | LWT | Visual inspection, pressing test, and silicone fit checker | Nil | The fit of CAD/CAM, RPD was superior |
|
