New to Zann? Request a welcome kit, Fast turnaround on first case. Send a case
← Back to all articles

from intraoral scan to lab: what actually matters in the handoff

Digital impressions have reduced physical shipping and sped up many steps but the quality of what the lab receives still depends on scan strategy, metadata, and how clearly the prescription is written.

Engineer or technician working with digital design hardware
Digital design and manufacturing rely on complete, accurate scan data especially at margins and interproximal contacts.

If you have ever received a phone call from the lab asking for a new scan, the issue was rarely “the scanner brand.” More often, it was data completeness: unclear margins, missing adjacent contacts, or a bite relationship that did not match how the case was prescribed.

What the lab receives in a typical digital case

Most intraoral scanning systems export proprietary files internally, but labs commonly work with open formats such as STL or vendor-specific formats supported by their CAD software. The important point is not memorizing every extension; it is ensuring your export includes the arch or arches the technician must use to design the restoration, any scan bodies or abutment-level data when applicable, and a bite record that reflects the intended vertical dimension and lateral guidance for that prescription.

In fixed prosthodontics, technicians model restorations against prepped teeth, neighboring teeth, and opposing occlusion. When a scan truncates a margin or glosses over a deep subgingival finish line, the design may look acceptable on screen while the physical crown does not seat. That mismatch drives remakes and extra appointments.

A complete scan is less about “more pixels” and more about capturing the geometry the brain of the technician has to trust.

Margins, contacts, and emergence

Clinicians can reduce back-and-forth by scanning slowly across finish lines, retracting adequately (whether traditionally or digitally), and verifying that interproximal areas are not collapsed or filled with artifacts. For anterior cases, incisal detail and translucency mapping are not always required for every restoration type but when esthetics are critical, sharing photographs and shade information alongside the scan is still standard practice in many labs.

Dental professional reviewing clinical information
Pairing digital data with clear written instructions and, when needed, clinical photos remains a reliable way to align expectations.

The prescription still carries the case

Software cannot infer material choice, occlusal scheme, or whether a contact should be light versus firm unless someone documents it. A concise RX with tooth number, material, shade system used, and any special instructions (for example, adjustment of proximal contact relative to a tight neighbor) prevents assumptions. If your practice uses standardized templates for common cases, teams tend to omit fewer details under time pressure.

Bite scans and centric records

For single units in stable occlusion, a routine bite scan may be sufficient. For larger reconstructions, wear cases, or when vertical dimension is in question, the lab may need additional records or may recommend a different clinical workflow. When in doubt, early communication before design begins saves far more time than adjusting ceramics chairside.

Takeaways for the whole team

Note: This article summarizes general workflow concepts for dental professionals. Individual patients, materials, and scanner ecosystems vary; always follow manufacturer IFU and your clinical training.