By Dr. Daslav Ilic

Digital dentistry initially developed around the clinical chair (chair-side), where a single system captured the impression, designed the restoration, and fabricated it. Over time, case complexity (implant-supported structures, full-arch rehabilitations, removable prostheses, orthodontics) exceeded both the capabilities of chair-side software and the manufacturing infrastructure available in the clinic, and the digitized dental laboratory regained a central role. The practical question for dentists and dental technicians is no longer whether to work digitally, but how to reliably connect scanners, design software, implant libraries, and fabrication equipment from different origins. This essay examines the challenges posed by the diversity of available platforms and analyzes how a more collaborative integration and standardization, independent of the brand of scanner, implant, or design software, is taking shape.

From remote connection to cloud platforms

Remote connection between clinic and laboratory found one of its pioneers in Sirona. In 2008 the company announced CEREC Connect as a web-based communication platform designed exclusively for CEREC and inLab users (Sirona Dental Systems, 2008) and, in April 2012, renamed the portal Sirona Connect, with data transmission that began while the dentist was still completing the digital order form (Sirona Dental Systems, 2012). It was an effective solution, but one born inside an ecosystem. Its current descendant, DS Core, is a cloud platform developed together with Google Cloud that states it offers file sharing compliant with GDPR and HIPAA (Dentsply Sirona unveils cloud-based DS Core digital dentistry platform, n.d.). It is now presented as an open platform able to integrate with products from other manufacturers (Dentsply Sirona, n.d.); it allows the laboratory to view cases in a web browser and send back models and design proposals even to dentists who do not yet use the platform (Dentsply Sirona’s DS Core open cloud platform adds new lab-focused features, n.d.); and it provides an application programming interface (API) so that laboratories, practice management systems, and dental service organizations can connect their own applications (Dentsply Sirona, 2025).

3Shape followed a parallel path with Unite, launched in 2021 and included at no additional cost with every TRIOS scanner, which offers an order form reaching more than one thousand laboratories and integrations with more than fifty clear aligner providers and patient management systems (3Shape, 2021). Its technical support site describes it as an open ecosystem of integrated products and services (3Shape, n.d.). Added to these are the platforms of dozens of intraoral scanner brands and of implant manufacturers, which have developed portals and complementary services to resolve procedures that do not fit the chair-side format, not only because of software complexity but also because of the installed capacity that manufacturing requires. This same pattern, more platforms than ever but little true interoperability between them, is what we’ve examined before as digital dentistry’s quiet interoperability crisis; this essay looks at the specific mechanics behind it.

Challenges of platform diversity

Multiple portals and formats

The first challenge is operational. Each platform adds a portal, an order form, and its own connection rules, so a clinician who works with several laboratories ends up managing multiple logins. DS Core itself promotes centralizing information to avoid checking portals, emails, messages, and file-transfer services (Dentsply Sirona’s DS Core open cloud platform adds new lab-focused features, n.d.), which implicitly acknowledges the problem. In addition, there is the assumption that the STL format guarantees compatibility. An article in Dental Products Report warns that it is a mistake to believe that any open laboratory CAD software can read all open STL files and that, as is usually the case, the laboratory must have a solution to handle the diversity of formats (How to Handle Digital Files From Your Dental Clients, 2014).

Variability in source data quality

A remote design can only be as good as the scan that originates it. A network meta-analysis that compared 26 intraoral scanners found significant accuracy differences among systems in all clinical scenarios and also showed that complete-arch accuracy varies by arch type (Vitai et al., 2023). An earlier systematic review had already noted that, in full-arch scanning, scanners are more susceptible to deviations and that results differ among systems (Abduo & Elseyoufi, 2018). For those providing design services, this means that verifying the quality of the input data is part of the service, not a preliminary formality.

Implant libraries and components

In implant dentistry, design depends on the CAD software correctly interpreting the physical geometry of scan bodies, titanium bases, and abutments through library files; if the library does not precisely match the physical component, the implant position in the digital model will be wrong (DESS, n.d.). The universe is broad: exoplan states that it includes 780 implant libraries from manufacturers such as Straumann, Nobel Biocare, Dentsply Sirona, Zimmer, and Camlog, in addition to local suppliers (exocad, n.d.). And compatibility rules are specific: one manufacturer indicates, for example, that designing on multi-unit abutments requires having scanned with multi-unit scan bodies and using the corresponding library (IPD, n.d.). A selection error at this point is not only a software problem but a clinical one.

Ecosystem dependence and hidden costs

Even in an environment that proclaims itself open, friction persists. Glidewell (2026), a laboratory that provides services to the market, describes the risk of being tied to specific laboratory networks, proprietary formats, “approved” workflows, and fees for exports or upgrades, and proposes interoperability as a decision criterion when choosing technology. For its part, Dentistry Today (n.d.) argues that proprietary formats bind the user to an ecosystem and observes that, while digital impressions and CAD/CAM have moved toward open architectures, digital radiography and practice management software have lagged behind. These sources should be read as industry perspectives rather than clinical evidence, but they coincide with what laboratories and clinics observe in daily practice.

Privacy and data governance

The circulation of large clinical files among clinics, laboratories, and design providers in different countries raises privacy requirements. The FDI World Dental Federation (FDI, 2025) holds that the adoption of digital dentistry must rely on governance that safeguards data privacy and security, and that interoperability is an essential principle. Platforms declare security standards, but each clinic and laboratory must verify compliance with applicable local regulations and define who holds custody of the data in workflows that involve several intermediaries.

Toward integration and standardization

The available evidence suggests a gradual convergence on three levels. The first is that of open formats: STL for restoration data, DICOM for tomography images, and PLY or OBJ when more visual information must be preserved function as a lingua franca among brands (Glidewell, 2026). In this essay’s view, however, these formats carry geometry but not necessarily the context of the case (indication, implant components, material parameters), so effective standardization will depend on metadata and libraries also being shared.

The second level is that of platforms opened through interfaces. The apps in the Unite store (3Shape, n.d.) and the DS Core API (Dentsply Sirona, 2025) show a shift from closed portals toward platforms that operate as nodes in a network. The addition of STL and PLY formats to the DS Core viewer, aimed especially at users of third-party scanners (Dentsply Sirona Updates DS Core With New Features, n.d.), is a concrete example of that movement. The third level is regulatory and professional. As early as 2017, the FDI called for open systems and international standards, developed by the ISO TC106 committee, to ensure interoperability among dental CAD/CAM systems (FDI, 2017), and its 2025 statement reiterates interoperability as a principle and recommends supporting the development of relevant standards (FDI, 2025).

Even so, caution is warranted. Statements of principle set a direction, but practical adoption still depends on the commercial decisions of each manufacturer, and declared openness does not always equal functional openness. A reasonable scenario for the coming years is a hybrid one: brand platforms that open up through interfaces, coexisting with neutral integration layers that translate formats, libraries, and order rules among systems.

The role of integrated design services

In this scenario, a design provider that is not tied to a single brand makes sense. WeCAD4You develops services that are not limited to solving an individual design but tailor the solution to the digital workflow of a specific laboratory, whether small or large, and integrate multiple platforms for large clinical centers that centralize manufacturing in their own central laboratory. For dentists and dental technicians overwhelmed by the range of offerings, the decision of whom to work with can rest on a few verifiable criteria: which formats the provider accepts and delivers and whether export fees apply; how it controls scan quality and the match of implant libraries; whether it adapts to the platform already installed without requiring a change of scanner or design software; what guarantees it offers on traceability and data protection; and whether it understands the real milling or printing capacity of the laboratory that will fabricate the piece.

Contacting WeCAD4You

Dentists, dental technicians, and clinical centers who wish to request digital design and manufacturing services, or to receive more information, can reach out through the contact form. When writing, it is helpful to indicate the intraoral scanner, design software, and milling or printing equipment in use, as well as the types of indications and the expected case volume, so that the team can propose a solution tailored to the digital workflow of each clinic or laboratory.

Conclusions

The diversity of platforms in digital dentistry offers freedom of choice but imposes coordination costs: multiple portals, formats that are not always as universal as assumed, heterogeneous data quality, complex implant libraries, ecosystem dependence, and privacy requirements. The evidence shows a trend toward more open platforms, common formats, and professional frameworks that promote interoperability, although the process is gradual and still uneven. While that convergence consolidates, integrated, brand-agnostic design services can act as a bridge, provided they verify the quality of the input data, respect the real prosthetic components, and adapt to each laboratory’s infrastructure. That is the space in which a company like WeCAD4You can contribute efficiency to clinics and laboratories.

FAQ

What is DS Core and how does it fit into digital dental workflows?

DS Core is Dentsply Sirona’s cloud platform, built with Google Cloud, for sharing case files between clinics and laboratories. It lets labs view cases in a browser, send back models and design proposals, and connect other systems through an API, and it has grown from a closed CEREC-only portal into a platform that also supports third-party scanners.

Why do implant libraries matter in digital implant design?

An implant library tells the CAD software the exact physical geometry of a scan body, titanium base, or abutment. If the library doesn’t precisely match the real component, the implant position in the digital model comes out wrong, which makes a library mismatch a clinical problem, not just a software one.

What makes digital dental platforms hard to integrate with each other?

Several things at once: each platform has its own portal and login, the STL format doesn’t guarantee real compatibility between CAD systems, scan accuracy varies meaningfully between intraoral scanner brands, implant libraries number in the hundreds and must match physical components exactly, and proprietary formats can tie a lab or clinic into a single ecosystem.

What should a dental lab or clinic look for in a brand-agnostic design partner?

Five verifiable criteria: which file formats it accepts and delivers, and whether export fees apply; how it verifies scan quality and implant library matches; whether it adapts to the scanner and design software already in place; what it guarantees on data traceability and protection; and whether it understands the real milling or printing capacity of the lab that will fabricate the final piece.

Is full interoperability in digital dentistry achievable soon?

Not in the short term. Organizations like the FDI have called for open standards since 2017, and platforms are opening up through APIs, but declared openness doesn’t always mean functional openness, and adoption still depends on each manufacturer’s commercial decisions. A hybrid model, brand platforms opening through interfaces alongside neutral integration layers, is the more realistic near-term outcome.

References

3Shape. (n.d.). What is the Unite Store?

3Shape. (2021, October 20). 3Shape launches 3Shape Unite – a collaborative platform [Press release].

Abduo, J., & Elseyoufi, M. (2018). Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, 26(3), 101–121.

Dentistry Today. (n.d.). Focus on: Open formats.

Dentsply Sirona. (n.d.). DS Core for dentists: Cloud solutions for your practice.

Dentsply Sirona. (2025, September 25). Dentsply Sirona and Pearl partner to deliver advanced AI-assisted radiologic support via DS Core integration [Press release]. Business Wire.

Dentsply Sirona’s DS Core open cloud platform adds new lab-focused features for efficient collaboration and smart workflows. (n.d.). Dental Products Report.

Dentsply Sirona unveils cloud-based DS Core digital dentistry platform. (n.d.). Dental Products Report.

Dentsply Sirona updates DS Core with new features. (n.d.). Dental Products Report.

DESS. (n.d.). A practical guide to DESS library integration.

exocad. (n.d.). exoplan [Brochure].

FDI World Dental Federation. (2017). CAD/CAM dentistry [Policy statement].

FDI World Dental Federation. (2025). Digital dentistry [Policy statement].

Glidewell. (2026, April 7). Freedom to choose, confidence to grow: The power of open systems in digital dentistry.

How to handle digital files from your dental clients. (2014, October 1). Dental Products Report.

IPD. (n.d.). FAQ international.

Sirona Dental Systems. (2008, January 17). Sirona to introduce CEREC Connect: The world’s first complete online dental communication platform [Press release]. Dentaltown.

Sirona Dental Systems. (2012, April 3). Digital impression portal renamed “Sirona Connect” [Press release]. Dental Community.

Vitai, V., Németh, A., Sólyom, E., Czumbel, L. M., Szabó, B., Fazekas, R., Gerber, G., Hegyi, P., & Hermann, P. (2023). Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry, 136, 104636.