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

IF 1.4 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Minerva dental and oral science Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-05 DOI:10.23736/S2724-6329.25.05258-1
Maria G Packaeser, Amanda M DE Oliveira Dal Piva, Cornelis J Kleverlaan, João P Mendes Tribst
{"title":"Economic aspects of 3D printing in restorative dentistry: a scoping review.","authors":"Maria G Packaeser, Amanda M DE Oliveira Dal Piva, Cornelis J Kleverlaan, João P Mendes Tribst","doi":"10.23736/S2724-6329.25.05258-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":18709,"journal":{"name":"Minerva dental and oral science","volume":" ","pages":"200-213"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva dental and oral science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6329.25.05258-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: 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.

Evidence acquisition: 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.

Evidence synthesis: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

3D打印在牙科修复中的经济方面:范围审查。
文献缺乏对3D打印在牙科修复中的全面评估,特别是与传统方法相比,其成本效益、材料浪费、生产时间和环境影响。这一范围审查的目的是系统地绘制当前文献的经济,环境方面,和传统制造的临床结果,比较增材3D打印方法的口腔修复材料。证据获取:遵循PRISMA-ScR指南,于2025年3月在PubMed、Embase和Scopus上进行文献检索。研究调查了冠、桥和假牙的研磨、压制技术和3D打印的材料、人工、设备和生产时间的成本。数据独立提取和分析,强调成本效益、材料浪费、环境影响和临床结果。证据综合:在185项确定的研究中,9项符合纳入标准,包括体外试验、临床试验、回顾性临床研究和比较经济分析。有证据表明,与铣削制造方法相比,3D打印具有更低的材料成本、更低的初始投资和更少的浪费。虽然铣削为单个修复提供了更高的精度和更快的生产速度,但3D打印具有卓越的成本效益,特别是在大批量场景中,可显着减少材料浪费和对环境的影响。两种方法的临床表现在患者满意度、保留率和性能方面似乎是相当的,尽管铣削达到了略高的精度。此外,当涉及到患者的偏好时,愿意支付分析费用的意愿有利于磨铣假体。结论:尽管铣削在对精度和机械强度要求较高的情况下更受青睐,但3D打印在成本效益和可持续性方面具有优势,特别是在大规模或临时修复方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva dental and oral science
Minerva dental and oral science DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
61
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书