We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Prosthodont 32 (2019), No. 1     28. Jan. 2019
Int J Prosthodont 32 (2019), No. 1  (28.01.2019)

Page 45-50, doi:10.11607/ijp.5932, PubMed:30372513


Application of Digital Technologies in Maxillofacial Prosthetics Literature: A 10-Year Observation of Five Selected Prosthodontics Journals
Elbashti, Mahmoud E. / Sumita, Yuka I. / Kelimu, Shajidan / Aswehlee, Amel M. / Awuti, Shataer / Hattori, Mariko / Taniguchi, Hisashi
Purpose: To identify trends in the application of various types of digital technologies in maxillofacial prosthetics by identifying these digital technologies and their characteristics and reviewing the prevalence of applied digital technologies and their recent trends in the maxillofacial prosthetics literature.
Materials and Methods: Five leading peer-reviewed prosthodontics journals were manually searched for maxillofacial prosthetics articles on the use of digital technologies published from January 2008 to December 2017. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data collected on productivity, type of digital technology used, type of article, type of defect, number of authors, and geographic distribution.
Results: Of the 336 maxillofacial prosthetics articles screened, 87 (26%) were selected for analysis. A remarkable increase was found in article productivity in the last 5 years (63%) compared to the first 5 years (37%). There was also a notable increase over the last 10 years in all digital technologies used except for evaluation technologies, which remained almost constant. Case reports most frequently mentioned use of digitization technologies (61%), design technologies (66%), and rapid prototyping technologies (66%). Original research articles most frequently mentioned use of evaluation technologies (89%); 39% of these technologies were used for intraoral defects and 27% for extraoral defects. Most often, articles had four to five authors (54%). Most published articles were from the Asia-Pacific region (44%), followed by North America (22%) and Europe (20%).
Conclusion: Although the application of digital technologies reported in the maxillofacial prosthetics literature has increased notably in leading prosthodontics journals over the last 10 years, total article productivity has remained relatively small.