Background: A maxillofacial prosthesis, an alternative to surgery for the rehabilitation of patients with facial disabilities (congenital or acquired due to malignant disease or trauma), are meant to replace parts of the face or missing areas of bone and soft tissue and restore oral functions such as swallowing, speech and chewing, with the main goal being to improve the quality of life of the patients. The conventional procedures for maxillofacial prosthesis manufacturing involve several complex steps, are very traumatic for the patient and rely on the skills of the maxillofacial team. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing have opened a new approach to the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses. Our review aimed to perform an update on the digital design of a maxillofacial prosthesis, emphasizing the available methods of data acquisition for the extraoral, intraoral and complex defects in the maxillofacial region and assessing the software used for data processing and part design. Methods: A search in the PubMed and Scopus databases was done using the predefined MeSH terms. Results: Partially and complete digital workflows were successfully applied for extraoral and intraoral prosthesis manufacturing. Conclusions: To date, the software and interface used to process and design maxillofacial prostheses are expensive, not typical for this purpose and accessible only to very skilled dental professionals or to computer-aided design (CAD) engineers. As the demand for a digital approach to maxillofacial rehabilitation increases, more support from the software designer or manufacturer will be necessary to create user-friendly and accessible modules similar to those used in dental laboratories.

(1) Background: Prosthetically-driven implant positioning is a prerequisite for long-term successful treatment. Transferring the planned implant position information to the clinical setting could be done using either static or dynamic guided techniques. The 3D model of the bone and surrounding structures is obtained via cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the patient’s oral condition can be acquired conventionally and then digitalized using a desktop scanner, partially digital workflow (PDW) or digitally with the aid of an intraoral scanner (FDW). The aim of the present randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to compare the accuracy of flapless dental implants insertion in partially edentulous patients with a static surgical template obtained through PDW and FDW. Patient outcome and time spent from data collection to template manufacturing were also compared. (2) Methods: 66 partially edentulous sites (at 49 patients) were randomly assigned to a PDW or FDW for guided implant insertion. Planned and placed implants position were compared by assessing four deviation parameters: 3D error at the entry point, 3D error at the apex, angular deviation, and vertical deviation at entry point. (3) Results: A total of 111 implants were inserted. No implant loss during osseointegration or mechanical and technical complications occurred during the first-year post-implants loading. The mean error at the entry point was 0.44 mm (FDW) and 0.85 (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; at implant apex, 1.03 (FDW) and 1.48 (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; the mean angular deviation, 2.12° (FDW) and 2.48° (PDW), p = 0.03 and the mean depth deviation, 0.45 mm (FDW) and 0.68 mm (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; (4) Conclusions: Despite the statistically significant differences between the groups, and in the limits of the present study, full digital workflow as well as partially digital workflow are predictable methods for accurate prosthetically driven guided implants insertion.

No abstract