Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
For decades, the humble laboratory prescription has been the primary link between clinician and technician—yet handwritten, inconsistent, and easy to misread, it has too often been the weakest link in the restorative chain. Digital prescriptions are changing that, and with them, the way the two professions communicate.
By Iman Hashim1, Chloe Lim2, Urvashnee Govender3, Shivani Kohli4, Frank Alifui-Segbaya5*
Why it matters for labs
Some remakes trace back to incomplete or ambiguous laboratory prescriptions. Clear, standardised information, whether on paper or a digital platform, reduces remakes, shortens turnaround times, and improves overall outcomes. For Australian labs, getting the workflow right includes meeting privacy obligations while keeping communication simple and reliable.
Manual and digital communication systems used in dental laboratories
The construction of high‑quality dental prostheses relies on clinical judgment, technical expertise, and effective communication between dentists and dental technicians. Yet work authorisation forms are frequently incomplete (e.g., omissions in pontic design, shade selection, and occlusal scheme)1,2.Carr & Brown3 emphasise the importance of dynamic two‑way communication and well‑constructed work authorisations as the foundation for predictable outcomes in removable partial prosthodontics. In practice, design responsibilities are often delegated to laboratories (e.g., 92.1 per cent of dentists report delegating RPD design in one large cross‑sectional study), which can fuel frustration when expectations and timelines are unclear4,5.
Digital prescription portals and integrated lab–practice platforms can standardise data capture, reduce back‑and‑forth, and accelerate case progress. Studies associate these systems with more complete essential fields, faster turnaround, and fewer clarifications6.
Adoption, however, depends on financial investment, onboarding, and strong governance. In Australia, digital workflows must comply with the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), notably APP 6 (use/disclosure), APP 8 (cross‑border disclosure), and APP 11 (security) as outlined in the OAIC’s Guide to Health Privacy7,8.
Why roles, hand-offs, and interprofessional collaboration matter
Clinicians carry legal responsibility for design and prescription; dental technicians contribute design and manufacturing expertise. When roles are not explicit, errors and remakes increase. Evidence suggests that experienced teams communicate more confidently2, and a triadic patient–dentist–technician approach can support shared decisions9.
To strengthen collaboration at its source, training institutions should embed interprofessional education early and often, using authentic cases to clarify expectations and workflows. Program evaluations in Australia report sustained gains in teamwork, role clarity, and confidence10,11.
Quick wins for practice
• Standardise work authorisations: Use a checklist for fixed and removable cases. Checklists are linked to better clinical outcomes and fewer omissions12.
• Confirm design responsibility: Assign the clinician by default, formalise technician feedback loops, and record any delegations to ensure accountability4,13.
• Secure digital prescriptions: Use platforms with mandatory fields, set response‑time targets for case queries, and monitor compliance with simple dashboards2,6.
• Privacy in practice: Avoid unsecured messaging for identifiable health information; maintain audit trails and minimise identifiers in images. Ensure compliance with APP 6/8/11 and local policies7,8.
• Interprofessional education: Normalise collaboration between dentistry and dental technology learners to clarify roles and strengthen teamwork10,11.
1,2Final year dental technology and prosthetics student;3dental hygienist and senior lecturer;4dentist and lecturer; and 5dental technologist and senior lecturer (corresponding author), all at the School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University
References (and further reading):
1. Tulbah, H., et al., Quality of communication between dentists and dental laboratory technicians for fixed prosthodontics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Dent J, 2017. 29(3): p. 111-116.
2. Punj, A., D. Bompolaki, and K.S. Kurtz, Dentist-laboratory communication and quality assessment of removable prostheses in Oregon: A cross-sectional pilot study. J Prosthet Dent, 2021. 126(1): p. 103-109.
3. Carr, A.B. and D.T. Brown, McCracken’s Removable Partial Prosthodontics. 13 ed. 2015, St. Louis: Elsevier. 2-13.
4. Afzal, H., et al. Assessment of Communication Quality through Work Authorization between Dentists and Dental Technicians in Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics. Applied Sciences, 2022. 12, 6263 DOI: 10.3390/app12126263.
5. Ismail, E.H. and D. Al-Moghrabi, Interrelationship between dental clinicians and laboratory technicians: a qualitative study. BMC Oral Health, 2023. 23(1): p. 682.
6. Nusairat, F.T., et al., Enhancing Communication Between Dental Laboratories and Clinics: The Role of Information Technology Systems in a Developing Country. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent, 2024. 16: p. 441-451.
7. Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), Australian Privacy Principles (APPs). 2025, Australian Government.
8. Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), Guide to Health Privacy. 2025, Australian Government.
9. Curtis, S., J. Gurveer, and J.E. Gallagher, Clinical dental technicians in the United Kingdom: A qualitative understanding of the experiences, of practices and challenges of communication for dental professionals. Gerodontology, 2019. 36(4): p. 405-416.
10. Evans, J., et al., The value of inter-professional education: a comparative study of dental technology students’ perceptions across four countries. British Dental Journal, 2015. 218(8): p. 481-487.
11. Storrs, M.J., et al., A 3-year qualitative evaluation of interprofessional team-based clinical education at an Australian dental school. J Dent Educ, 2023. 87(7): p. 997-1007.
12.cBresciano, M.E., et al., Efficacy of a Checklist for Office-Laboratory Communication: A Clinical Study on Quality Outcomes for Single Crowns. Int J Prosthodont, 2017. 30(2): p. 160-162.
13. Moghadam, M., D. Urban, and S. Pigliacelli, Laboratory Communication for Optimal Patient Outcomes. Dent Clin North Am, 2025. 69(2): p. 193-208.