3D Digital vs. Conventional Workflows: A Comparative Analysis of Sustainability, Clinical Time, and Cost

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.