3D Digital vs. Conventional Workflows: A Comparative Analysis of Sustainability, Clinical Time, and Cost
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15517/cav4em75Keywords:
Digital workflow; 3D printing; Sustainability; Cost analysis; Time efficiency.Abstract
The transition toward digital dentistry is transforming clinical workflows. While 3D printing offers operational advantages, its actual impact on sustainability, time efficiency, and economic profitability compared to traditional analog methods remains a subject of debate, especially in academic training settings. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the environmental impact (solid waste generation), execution time, and production cost of bimaxillary study models fabricated via a digital workflow (SLA 3D printing) versus the conventional method (alginate and plaster). A paired observational comparative study was conducted on 53 patients. Each participant was evaluated using both methods (paired-measures design). Sustainability was determined by weighing solid waste (grams); cost was calculated by integrating raw materials, labor, and indirect costs; and execution time was measured from the impression acquisition to the attainment of the final model. Differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (α=0,05). The 3D digital technique generated a significant reduction in solid waste production, with a median of -669 g (95% CI: -741 to -591) compared to the conventional method (p<0.001). However, the digital workflow presented higher costs, with a median of 86.69 soles (95% CI: 84.15 to 89.24), and a longer production time (median of 2.85 hours vs. 1.38 hours; p<0.001), with a 96.5% probability of superiority regarding speed in favor of the conventional method. Digital manufacturing significantly reduces the solid waste footprint, positioning it as a more sustainable alternative in the academic environment. However, this environmental advantage entails a higher economic and time investment.
Downloads
References
Khurshid Z. Digital Dentistry: Transformation of Oral Health and Dental Education with Technology. Eur J Dent. 2023;17(4):943-4. doi:10.1055/s-0043-1772674 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1772674
Derakhshi H, Alihemmati M, Hakimaneh SMR, Bafandeh MA, Jahangiri M, Shayegh SS. Comparing the accuracy of 3D-printed casts versus plaster casts for tooth-supported and implant-supported restorations. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2025;22:14. doi:10.4103/drj.drj_382_24 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/drj.drj_382_24
Tian Y, Chen C, Xu X, Wang J, Hou X, Li K, et al. A Review of 3D Printing in Dentistry: Technologies, Affecting Factors, and Applications. Scanning. 2021;2021:9950131. doi:10.1155/2021/9950131 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9950131
Shinkai RSA, Biazevic MGH, Michel-Crosato E, Campos TT de. Environmental sustainability related to dental materials and procedures in prosthodontics: A critical review. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;133(6):1466-73. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.05.024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.05.024
Daum AC, Drath KJ, Weigand H, Schlenz MA, Völker F, Rohn H. Sustainability in Dentistry—Insights into Waste Impacts from a Carbon Footprint Comparison Between Conventional and Digital Impression Techniques. Waste. 2026;4(1):5. doi:10.3390/waste4010005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/waste4010005
Khanna R, Konyukhov Y, Maslennikov N, Kolesnikov E, Burmistrov I. An Overview of Dental Solid Waste Management and Associated Environmental Impacts: A Materials Perspective. Sustainability. 2023;15(22):15953. doi:10.3390/su152215953 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215953
Guerra M, Morgado M, Leira Y, Leitão T, Botelho J, Mendes JJ. Integrating sustainability in dentistry: a pathway towards achieving the UN 2030 agenda. Front Oral Health. 2025;6:1549020. doi:10.3389/froh.2025.1549020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2025.1549020
Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Herford AS, Laino L, Troiano G, Amoroso G, et al. Alginate Materials and Dental Impression Technique: A Current State of the Art and Application to Dental Practice. Mar Drugs. 2018;17(1):18. doi:10.3390/md17010018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/md17010018
Alqahtani SM, Chaturvedi S, Alahmari MA, Alaleyani AM, Alqahtani AA, Sahal AA, et al. Digital impression (intraoral scanners) and factors affecting its accuracy – an insight into knowledge and awareness amongst graduates, and clinical practitioners. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:1323. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-05075-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05075-y
Varela PR, Walker S, Asencio IO, Rothman R, Pfefferkorn F, Seemann R, et al. Environmental impacts from conventional and digital dental crown fabrication workflows: A comparative life cycle assessment. Materials. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2026.05.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2026.05.021
Khiavi HA, Rahman WA, Mosaddad SA, Habibzadeh S. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study. Health Sci Rep. 2026;9(2):e71775. doi:10.1002/hsr2.71775 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.71775
Park JS, Lim YJ, Kim B, Kim MJ, Kwon HB. Clinical Evaluation of Time Efficiency and Fit Accuracy of Lithium Disilicate Single Crowns between Conventional and Digital Impression. Materials. 2020;13(23):5467. doi:10.3390/ma13235467 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235467
Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Fehmer V, Hämmerle CHF, Benic GI. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(1):69-75. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.021
Borșanu IA, Rusu LC, Antonie SM, Bratu EA. Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Digital Versus Conventional Dental Impression Techniques in Implant-Supported Restorations. Prosthesis. 2025;7(6):135. doi:10.3390/prosthesis7060135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis7060135
Popescu M, Perieanu VS, Burlibașa M, Vorovenci A, Malița MA, Petri DC, et al. Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Resin 3D Printing Protocols in Dental Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review. Prosthesis. 2025;7(4):78. doi:10.3390/prosthesis7040078 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis7040078
Liu CM, Hsu MH, Ng MY, Yu CH. Digital integration in dental education: A novel self-directed learning model using intraoral scanners for tooth preparation training. J Dent Sci. 2025;20(1):639-45. doi:10.1016/j.jds.2024.10.030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2024.10.030
Zuercher AN, Ioannidis A, Hüsler J, Mehl A, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35(1):74-83. doi:10.1111/jerd.12909 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12909
Czajkowska M, Walejewska E, Zadrożny Ł, Wieczorek M, Święszkowski W, Wagner L, et al. Comparison of Dental Stone Models and Their 3D Printed Acrylic Replicas for the Accuracy and Mechanical Properties. Materials. 2020;13(18):4066. doi:10.3390/ma13184066 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13184066
Moss OB, Simionato AA, Faria ACL, Rodrigues RCS, Ribeiro RF. 3D-Printed Versus Conventional Dental Provisional Resins: A Comparative Study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2026;62(2):382. doi:10.3390/medicina62020382 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62020382
Srinivasan M, Schimmel M, Naharro M, O’ Neill C, McKenna G, Müller F. CAD/CAM milled removable complete dentures: time and cost estimation study. J Dent. 2019;80:75-9. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2018.09.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.09.003
García Montagut J, González A, Paz R, Suárez L, Bordón P, Ortega Z, et al. Additive Manufacturing in Dentistry: A Comparative Study of Polymeric Surgical Guide Fabrication. Polymers. 2025;17:2764. doi:10.3390/polym17202764 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17202764
Hegedus T, Kreuter P, Kismarczi-Antalffy AA, Demeter T, Banyai D, Vegh A, et al. User Experience and Sustainability of 3D Printing in Dentistry. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(4):1921. doi:10.3390/ijerph19041921 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041921
Byrne D, Saget S, Davidson A, Haneef H, Abdeldaim T, Almudahkah A, et al. Comparing the environmental impact of reusable and disposable dental examination kits: a life cycle assessment approach. Br Dent J. 2022;233(4):317-25. doi:10.1038/s41415-022-4912-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-4912-4
Ahmad S, Hasan N, Fauziya null, Gupta A, Nadaf A, Ahmad L, et al. Review on 3D printing in dentistry: conventional to personalized dental care. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2022;33(17):2292-323. doi:10.1080/09205063.2022.2099666 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2022.2099666
Youssef SH, Abdella S, Garg S. Development and Validation of a Novel Tool for Assessing the Environmental Impact of 3D Printing Technologies: A Pharmaceutical Perspective. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(5):933. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics14050933 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14050933
Muehlemann E, Pachiou A, Sáenz-Ravello G, Jung RE, Strauss FJ, Liguori MG. Cost-efficiency of digital versus conventional workflow for removable complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2026;35(3):243-51. doi:10.1111/jopr.70074 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.70074
Arakawa I, Al-Haj Husain N, Srinivasan M, Maniewicz S, Abou-Ayash S, Schimmel M. Clinical outcomes and costs of conventional and digital complete dentures in a university clinic: A retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(3):390-5. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.014
Otake R, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Soeda Y, Hada T, Katheng A, et al. Patient-reported outcome and cost-effectiveness analysis of milled and conventionally fabricated complete dentures in a university clinic: A retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(2):227-32. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.12.024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.12.024
Casucci A, Cagidiaco E, Verniani G, Ferrari M, Borracchini A. Digital vs. Conventional Removable Complete Dentures: A Retrospective Study on Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Efficiency in Edentulous Patients. J Dent. 2024;153:105505. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105505 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105505
Bessadet M, Drancourt N, Osta NE. Time efficiency and cost analysis between digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;133(1):71-84. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.003
Cheng CW, Ye SY, Chien CH, Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P, Ko CC. Randomized clinical trial of a conventional and a digital workflow for the fabrication of interim crowns: An evaluation of treatment efficiency, fit, and the effect of clinician experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(1):73-81. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.006
Mühlemann S, Benic GI, Fehmer V, Hämmerle CHF, Sailer I. Clinical quality and efficiency of monolithic glass ceramic crowns in the posterior area: digital compared with conventional workflows. Int J Comput Dent. 2018;21(3):215-23. PubMed PMID: 30264050.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Antonio Aguirre-Aguilar, Alberto Aguirre-Aguilar, Teresa Etelvina Ríos-Caro, Gary Quispe-Dionicio, Jackelyne Vallejos-Puelles, Fredy Hugo Cruzado-Oliva.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ODOVTOS - Int. J. Dent. Sc. endorses CC BY-NC-SA
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:
BY: credit must be given to the creator.
NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.
SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms.
