{"id":13862,"date":"2026-02-26T11:31:42","date_gmt":"2026-02-26T10:31:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.larident.it\/?p=13862"},"modified":"2026-02-26T11:31:42","modified_gmt":"2026-02-26T10:31:42","slug":"phygital-workflow-in-dentistry-practice-laboratory-synergy-and-precision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.larident.it\/en\/phygital-workflow-in-dentistry-practice-laboratory-synergy-and-precision\/","title":{"rendered":"Phygital Workflow in Dentistry: Practice-Laboratory Synergy and Precision"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The monitor\u2019s betrayal: why your phygital workflow still needs physics (and chemistry)<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

You know that feeling of completeness and satisfaction when you look at a perfect 3D rendering?
On the monitor, at 30x magnification, the margins are flawless, no gaps, and the occlusion seems written in the stars. Yet sometimes, the in-mouth trial brings us abruptly back to earth.

This happens because the efficiency of your phygital workflow in dentistry<\/strong> depends not only on the power of the software, but on the quality of the \u201cstate transition\u201d between atom and pixel, between the physical world and the digital one. If the physical matter is not prepared correctly, the digital layer accumulates errors upon errors that no algorithm can correct (for now!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The practice-laboratory synergy: beyond the “do and redo”<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The success of a restoration is a chess match played between the Practice and the Laboratory. A few months ago we explored the anti-do-and-redo protocol<\/a> with a focus on the clinical side; today we take it a step further.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The digital dentist-dental technician collaboration<\/strong>, today, cannot be merely an exchange of STL files; it is the sharing of physical standards. When the technician receives a scan, they must be certain that what they see is reality, not an optical interpretation distorted by reflections or moisture. Optimizing this interface is the secret to reducing stress for both professionals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surface optimization: the secret to posthetic precision<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Why do scanner reading errors on plaster models<\/strong> occur so often? It\u2019s a matter of physics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The physics is simple: scanner light bounces off shiny or translucent surfaces, creating artifacts on the sensors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And how can we \u201cshape\u201d physics so it no longer works against our intentions and expectations? With a little preparation, a few specific products, and a few minutes dedicated to this step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Lights<\/strong><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

To achieve consistent analog-digital prosthetic precision<\/strong>, the model (or the abutment) must be \u201cseen\u201d correctly. Opacification remains the best way to avoid artifacts and achieve clean scans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n