The remake solution: can teams reduce dental lab remakes with intraoral scanning?

When we think about remakes, we often consider them from the patient and the dental clinic’s point of view. We imagine a busy receptionist who has to make the awkward call that a patient needs to come back in, or an irritated patient who needs to clear another afternoon to strike a task off their list they thought was already done. But what about the lab technicians? 

When remakes are necessary, it’s often linked to the quality and completeness of the clinical input, especially the scan. And yet it’s the technicians who may get the blame. 

First, it can help to define what counts as a ‘remake’ versus an ‘adjustment.

A dental lab ‘remake’ usually means the restoration must be remade from scratch, while an ‘adjustment’ means chairside or lab modification is required for fit, contacts, occlusion, or shade.

Remakes or chairside/lab adjustments are a normal part of dentistry. Common triggers include poor marginal integrity, open contacts, occlusal discrepancies, and shade mismatch.

However, the number of remakes labs have to deal with can vary. In the U.S., industry references often cite a national average remake rate of around 4%, with wide variability between 1% and 7% depending on workflow, case complexity, and the quality of clinical input.¹

For the lab, those remakes can be frustrating, especially when the problem originated with the scan. Technicians end up staying late in the lab to squeeze a remake into their already packed schedule, context switching from other cases, and feeling an unfair hit to their reputation. 

Clinical research confirms that “the accuracy of intraoral scanning is influenced by various factors such as scanner selection, operator skill, calibration, patient’s oral anatomy, ambient conditions, and scanning aids." ²

In practice, many downstream fit and communication issues originate before the case reaches the lab.

So, what moves the needle? We believe that technology and workflow design can reduce error sources that trigger remakes. In one in-vivo study run by Dr Francesco G Mangano et al, the iTero Lumina™ scanner was found to have no significant difference against extra-oral photogrammetry and intra-oral photogrammetry. All three technologies outperformed TRIOS 6^®, i900 and CS 3800^®.³

For clinics, this level of scan quality means high accuracy with a single scan without the need to adopt any new devices, and for labs – this means a far lower chance of remakes. Moreover, in a December 2021 survey of n=244 general practitioners (USA + EU5) with ≥3 years’ experience and ≥6 months of iTero scanner use, we found that 78% of surveyed GPs reported a lower impression remake rate versus analog impressions; respondents estimating the drop reported a median reduction of 36% (per Align ‘data on file’ documentation⁴).

If the first piece of the puzzle is scan accuracy, the second is communication. 

Here is a practical example that shows how early lab review can prevent a remake before it happens, shared by Ashley Byrne, CDT, Associate Director of Byrnes Dental Laboratory. 

“Only last week we had a scan come through. It was very clear to us immediately that we had excess saliva on one of the scan bodies, which came with a bit of distortion. We managed to catch it before the scan body had even been removed from the mouth.”

Instead of proceeding with an imperfect file, the lab flagged the issue immediately:

“The dentist cleaned it, dried it, rescanned just that one area — and within three to four minutes I had the scan back.”

The key mechanism: identify scan artifacts while the patient is still in the chair, so only a small area needs correction. What enables this speed in practice? The iTero‑exocad Connector™ is a direct digital connection that delivers iTero scans into exocad software so labs can review files immediately.

With the iTero-exocad Connector, your lab receives scans immediately, directly inside your exocad software. Which means if you know you’re expecting a scan through, you can check it while the patient is still in the chair. 

From the clinic perspective, faster transmission enables real-time feedback before the patient leaves. Dr Steve Glassman, DDS, shared with us how powerful this is:. “Immediate data transmission allows real‑time feedback and adjustments while the patient is still in the chair. This eliminates the inconvenience of return visits for additional scans.” Happy clinic, happy lab. 

The connector helps communicate in both directions, as when your lab is ready, you can share your prosthetic design with the clinic for comment, approval or rejection before you go to production. In this situation, you simply send it from your CAD software, and the clinic can see it in the MyiTero™ portal.

The benefits extend beyond less work on a single case. Educational analyses of laboratory remakes describe how adjustments and rework disrupt normal workflow and concentration — increasing fatigue and error risk across other cases. According to one study, overloading technicians can “result in an increased chance of systematic errors and poor overall quality of work.” ⁵ In contrast, by communicating quickly and receiving accurate scans, adjustments and rework are dramatically reduced, limiting the risk of errors and burnout.

To reduce remake risk, clinics and labs need two things: accurate scans and fast, complete case communication. The ideal checklist includes:

• Scan issues caught while the patient is still seated, rather than only realizing there is a problem many days later. 
• Localized corrections, where possible. These are highly preferable to full rescans, because extensive cutoff/rescanning can negatively impact accuracy.⁶
• All the necessary case data, including prep photos, stump shade, bite references (and any relevant clinical notes) to reduce interpretation stress.
• Early alignment on design intent, with comments and approvals built into your workflow before CAM production begins. 

1. The Cost of Laboratory Remakes, Nov 2020, https://www.speareducation.com/resources/spear-digest/the-cost-of-laboratory-remakes/ 
2. Alkadi, L. A Comprehensive Review of Factors That Influence the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 3291. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13213291
3. Mangano, F. et al. (2026). Trueness of extraoral photogrammetry, intraoral photogrammetry and direct intraoral scanning in the full-arch digital implant impression: a comparative in vitro study. Journal of Dentistry, Feb:165:106269.
4. Based on a survey in December of 2021 of n = 244 general practitioners with at least 3 years’ experience in USA and EU5 and using iTero scanner for six or more months, were presented with a true/false statement: “Since I started using my IOS, I have a lower remake rate (compared to analog impression)”. If true, doctors were asked to estimate the average drop. 36% was the median of all true responses. Data on file at Align Technology, as of June 14, 2022.
5. Ismail EH et al. Interrelationship between dental clinicians and dental laboratory technicians. September 2023, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10512600/ 
6. Guo, J. et al. (2024). Influence of repeated cut-off and rescanning on the trueness of the intraoral digital scans. Journal of Dentistry, Nov:150:105153.