Tell us about your mill, printer and materials
A design file is only useful if it matches the equipment and material you will produce it with. We design in exocad, but the settings below belong to your workflow and we cannot guess them. On your first case, state them on the prescription:
| What to tell us | Why we need it |
| Your mill or 3D printer and CAM software | So we send back files your CAM software can import |
| Material, brand and blank type (disc, block, printing resin) | To keep minimum thickness and bridge connector size within that material’s instructions for use |
| Cement gap and any extra spacer you use | The right value depends on your mill and material, so we need the setting you actually use |
| How tight you want proximal and occlusal contacts | So the restoration seats with as little chairside adjustment as possible |
| Implant cases: Ti-base brand and height, preferred screw-channel direction | So the abutment or crown is designed for the interface you will bond to |
If you need the exocad project file to keep editing, not just the finished mesh, say so on the prescription so we can confirm before accepting the case.
File formats: what to send and what to ask for
- PLY or STL: PLY keeps surface colour, which shows gingiva and margins more clearly to the designer. A study of 1,800 intraoral scans from three scanners found PLY files were 50–62% smaller than the matching STL files without colour, and 39–59% smaller with colour, while the vertex geometry was preserved. Smaller files upload faster. If your scanner exports PLY, send PLY.
- Implant cases: the scan body is what transfers the implant position from the mouth into the software, and a systematic review describes it as essential to accurately fitting implant restorations. Give the exact brand and reference of the scan body you used. If you are unsure which library matches it, ask us before you scan.
- Files you get back: state the format you need (for example one STL per restoration or one per case) and any file-naming convention your production team uses.
Export steps for each scanner are in our article on scanner compatibility and STL, PLY and DCM files.
Approving the design: what to check
The screenshots of the main views are your chance to catch problems before anything is milled or printed. Check by case type:
- Crowns and veneers: the margin line follows the preparation on the colour scan; thickness at the thinnest point is not below the material’s minimum; proximal contacts; occlusal contacts in centric and in excursions.
- Diagnostic wax-ups: incisal length, midline and smile line against the portrait photos. See diagnostic wax-ups.
- Custom abutments: margin position relative to the gingiva, emergence profile, and the space left for the crown. Background: custom vs stock implant abutments.
- Bite splints: thickness and contact distribution as you prescribed. See jaw stabilization splint.
- All-on-X: screw access positions, tooth position against the lip, and whether the intaglio surface is cleansable. Example: All-on-X full arch with gingival ceramics.
- Surgical guides: the implant plan on each cross-section. See surgical guides: what to send the lab.
When you mill or print in-house
Design is one link in the chain. Fit also depends on your CAM settings, the zirconia sintering shrinkage factor and printer calibration. Our article on CAD/CAM accuracy and marginal fit explains where error accumulates. If several cases in a row show the same problem (tight, loose or open margins), send photos and a description so the design settings can be adjusted for the next cases.
If you would rather we fabricate as well, production takes 2–4.5 working days depending on material and number of units, Monday to Saturday, 8:00–19:00 Vietnam time, plus 2–4 days by DHL Express for international delivery. See turnaround time and shipping.
Sources: Doan HT et al. Comparison of stereolithography (STL) and polygon file format (PLY) for intraoral scans. J Dent 2026;165:106253; Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:343–352.