Introduction: Despite increasing adoption, there is a limited comprehensive analysis of the economic and environmental implications of 3D printing in restorative dentistry. This review aims to systematically explore existing literature on the cost-efficiency, material utilization, production timelines, and material waste of additive 3D printing methods versus conventional manufacturing techniques for dental restorations.

Methods: Adhering to PRISMA-ScR standards, a systematic search was conducted in March 2025 across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. The included studies evaluated material costs, labor, equipment, and production duration for pressed and 3D printing techniques used in fabricating crowns, bridges, and dentures for permanent purposes. Data were extracted and analyzed independently, focusing on economic viability, material waste, environmental impact, and clinical outcomes.

Results: Out of 185 identified records, 9 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing in vitro experiments, clinical trials, retrospective analyses, and economic comparisons. The findings indicate that 3D printing generally incurs lower material and upfront costs, with reduced waste production compared to conventional methods. Although conventional manufacturing approaches offer superior precision and faster production for single restorations, 3D printing provides greater cost benefits and environmental sustainability, especially when producing multiple units. Clinical performance metrics, including patient satisfaction and retention, are comparable among the methods, with conventional methods slightly surpassing in accuracy.

Conclusion: 3D printing is the most cost-effective alternative for large-scale or provisional dental restorations. However, traditional manufacturing methods are preferred when high precision and strength are required.