Subgroup analysis
RPDs, RPD, analysisForest
Subgroup analysis was conducted for different types of digital technologies. All studies were compared according to three groups (Table Results of subgroup analysisForest plot of meta-analysis for fit accuracy of RPD rests—AM vs CLWWhile in subgroup (MI vs CLW), there was a statistically significant difference with a favorable trend in the MI technique (Forest plot of meta-analysis for fit accuracy of RPD rests—MI vs CLWThe subgroup of Indirect digital technologies vs CLW included 6 groups from 4 studies. Results in a fixed effects model indicated that CLW RPDs obtained a significant better fit accuracy in rest region than RPDs fabricated by indirect digital technologies (SMD = 0.51, 95%CI (0.23, 0.80), Forest plot of meta-analysis for fit accuracy of RPD rests – Indirect digital technologies vs CLWOne study evaluated the fit accuracy of RPD rest in all groups before and after finishing and polishing [Meta-analysis for fit accuracy of RPD rests—before vs after finishing & polishingHybrid manufacturing was used in two in vitro studies [Results of two studies included in qualitative descriptionNakata et al. reported that compared to cast clasps, the CAM clasps presented significantly greater gap distances (