There was indeed disruption! The Suez Crisis alone was significant, but the knock-on effects were and remain hard to separate from the other aspects of the Crisis that created economic difficulty; the trouble that the UK was already undergoing during that Crisis and the threat of the US to use its economic position to force the UK to retreat or face economic collapse was far more impactful.

However, the 1967 war caused more than a short disruption for the 6 days of the war itself; in fact, the war resulted in a disruption of the traffic on the Canal for over 6 years. Following the 1967 war, during which Israel had managed to reach the Suez Canal and capture the Sinai (leaving Egypt and Israel facing off across the Sinai), Egypt refused to contemplate that Israel could use the Canal. Instead, Egypt imposed a blockade that allowed no ships through the Canal at all. Famously, 15 ships were stuck in what is known as the "Yellow Fleet", called that because of the desert sand that swept on board. Those ships were blocked on either side by Egyptian ships that refused to allow them to pass. Worse, the canal was blocked by Egypt because it consciously sunk various things, from ships to bridges, and added mines, making the area unpassable regardless of anyone who would've perhaps tried to break the blockade. Some ships had already been destroyed during the 1967 war, and were simply left in place. During that period, the ships were still stuck in the Great Bitter Lakes in between the Suez opening on the south and Port Said at the north. Well, 14 were; the 15th was in Lake Timsah. Following the 1975 Sinai Accords, an interim agreement that came before the 1979 peace treaty, Egypt cleared the Canal's debris and mines (with a lot of help from the US and UK, which provided minesweepers as well), and reopened it to international transit, finally allowing the Yellow Fleet to exit. Well, not all of it immediately; some of the ships could no longer safely make the trips back to their home countries.

The knock-on effects on the economy also remain hard to differentiate. However, some have estimated that by reducing trade, it decreased incomes (full paper in PDF here), as each dollar of trade was associated with a 25 cent increase in incomes. It certainly seemed to come at the same time as a drop in trade worldwide, no doubt because it was harder to economically justify the far longer trade routes that the Suez so effectively shortened. The costs to countries who relied most on trade through the Suez and whose trade routes were significantly elongated show, at the very least, significant lost benefits economically after controlling for as many other potential factors as possible.

Great question! Let me know if that helps or you'd like more information.