EPA Consensus Project Paper: Shifting from the “Analogic Virtual Patient” to the “Digital Virtual Patient” in Prosthodontics. A Scoping Review

Page Start
Page End
  • Guillermo Pradíes
  • Ana M. García-Naranjo
  • Francisco Martínez-Rus
  • Rafael Martínez de Fuentes
  • Marta Romeo-Rubio


Aims: To determine whether the use of single or combined mechanical and virtual articulators, as well as facebows, jaw motion trackers, face scanners, and related devices, actually improve the efficacy of the prosthesis obtained in terms of lifespan and patient-related outcomes. To coin the terms Analogic and Digital Virtual Patients (AVP and DVP) as an attempt to analyze, clarify and synthesize terminology and workflows related to previously so-called devices. Materials and Methods: A scoping review was accomplished involving different databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and JBI guidance were followed to extract data regarding the Population, Context and Concept established. Results: Available literature on the efficacy of using devices and techniques related to both AVP and DVP workflows showed arguable study designs, great heterogeneity, and questionable quality. Conclusions: The terms AVP and DVP have been coined as a first step to clarify and simplify concepts and workflows related to the use of both mechanical and virtual articulators, as well as facebows, or facial and intraoral scanners, among others. This scoping review cannot claim that an AVP approach leads to more effective and efficient prosthetic restorations.

Occlusion Analysis
Jaw Tracking Devices
Mechanical Articulator
Virtual Articulator