Economic aspects of 3D printing in restorative dentistry: a scoping review

The literature lacks a comprehensive evaluation of 3D printing in restorative dentistry, particularly regarding its cost-efficiency, material waste, production time, and environmental impact compared to traditional methods. This scoping review aims to systematically map current literature on the economic, environmental aspects, and clinical outcomes of traditional manufacturing compared to additive 3D printing methods for dental prosthesis materials.

Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a literature search was conducted in March 2025 across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Studies investigating the costs of materials, labor, equipment, and production times of milled, pressed techniques, and 3D printing for crowns, bridges, and dentures were included. Data were independently extracted and analyzed, emphasizing cost-effectiveness, material waste, environmental impact, and clinical outcomes.

Out of 185 identified studies, 9 met the inclusion criteria, comprising in vitro, clinical trials, retrospective clinical studies, and comparative economic analyses. Evidence suggests that 3D printing exhibits lower material costs, lower initial investments, and less waste compared to the milling manufacturing method. While milling provides higher accuracy and faster production for single-unit restorations, 3D printing demonstrates superior cost-effectiveness, especially in high-volume scenarios, with notable reductions in material waste and environmental impact. Clinical performance between methods appears comparable in terms of patient satisfaction, retention, and performance, though milling achieves marginally higher precision. Furthermore, willingness to pay analysis favors milled prosthesis when it comes to patient preferences.

Despite milling being favored for cases demanding high precision and mechanical strength, 3D printing is advantageous for cost-efficiency and sustainability, particularly for large-scale or provisional restorations.