exocad vs 3Shape vs CEREC: Dental CAD Software Comparison for Labs and Clinics

exocad vs 3Shape vs CEREC: Dental CAD Software Comparison for Labs and Clinics

I've worked with all three of these dental CAD platforms in different lab and clinical settings. exocad, 3Shape Dental System, and CEREC represent the three dominant approaches to digital dentistry — open architecture, semi-open ecosystem, and fully integrated closed system. Understanding their differences is critical for labs and clinics making a CAD platform investment, as the choice affects scanner compatibility, material options, workflow efficiency, and long-term flexibility.

Core Architecture

| Aspect | exocad | 3Shape | CEREC | |--------|--------|--------|-------| | Architecture | Open | Semi-open | Closed | | Scanner compatibility | Any STL scanner | 3Shape scanners + select third-party | CEREC scanners only | | Mill compatibility | Any open mill | 3Shape mills + select third-party | CEREC mills only | | Implant libraries | Open (any manufacturer) | 3Shape-licensed libraries | Dentsply Sirona + licensed | | File format | STL, PLY, OBJ | .dcm (proprietary) + STL export | .dxd (proprietary) + STL export | | Licensing | Perpetual or subscription | Subscription only | Bundled with hardware | | Updates | Annual releases | Quarterly cloud updates | Tied to hardware updates |

exocad

Strengths

• Open architecture: Works with any scanner that outputs STL files — no hardware lock-in
• Flexible licensing: Perpetual license available (own it forever) or subscription
• Any mill: Output STL files to any CAM/mill system
• Comprehensive implant library: Supports virtually every implant system
• Customizable: Labs can create custom tooth libraries and workflows
• Third-party integration: Works with any third-party software (CAM, design tools)
• Cost-effective: Lower total cost of ownership than 3Shape or CEREC
• Large reseller network: Available through many dental dealers worldwide

Weaknesses

• Less integrated: Requires separate scanner software and CAM software
• Steeper initial learning curve: More steps than the fully integrated CEREC workflow
• No built-in scanner: Must use a third-party scanner (3Shape, Medit, EinScan, etc.)
• Update frequency: Annual major updates (vs. 3Shape's quarterly cloud updates)
• Less prescriptive: More design freedom means more responsibility for the technician

Best For

• Dental labs that want flexibility in scanner and mill choices
• Labs that work with multiple implant systems
• Labs that want to own their software (perpetual license)
• Labs that already have scanners and mills from different manufacturers
• Technicians who want full control over the design process

3Shape Dental System

Strengths

• Integrated ecosystem: Scanner and software designed together for optimal performance
• Excellent scanner quality: 3Shape scanners (E-series, D-series) are industry-leading
• Frequent updates: Quarterly cloud-based updates with new features
• Comprehensive design tools: Crown & bridge, implant, ortho, RPD, dentures
• Strong orthodontic module: Best-in-class for clear aligner design
• Good automation: High level of automatic design proposals
• Cloud collaboration: 3Shape Communicate for lab-clinic case sharing

Weaknesses

• Subscription only: No perpetual license — ongoing cost forever
• Hardware tied: Best performance with 3Shape scanners (though STL import is supported)
• Proprietary format: .dcm format requires export to STL for third-party mills
• Higher cost: Subscription + scanner investment is significant
• Less flexibility: Design workflow is more prescriptive than exocad
• Implant library licensing: Some implant libraries require additional licensing fees

Best For

• Labs that want an integrated scanner + software solution
• Labs that prioritize frequent updates and new features
• Orthodontic practices (3Shape's ortho module is excellent)
• Labs willing to pay subscription for ongoing development
• Labs that value automation and workflow efficiency

CEREC (Dentsply Sirona)

Strengths

• Fully integrated: Scanner, software, and mill all from one manufacturer
• Fastest same-visit workflow: Scan, design, and mill in a single appointment
• Excellent for clinics: Designed for chairside use by dentists, not technicians
• Intuitive interface: Easiest to learn of the three
• Reliable: Closed system means fewer compatibility issues
• Hardware quality: CEREC scanners (Primescan) and mills are excellent
• Biogeneric design: AI-based tooth design that mimics the patient's original tooth
• Large user base: Extensive training and support network

Weaknesses

• Closed system: Only works with CEREC scanners and mills
• Highest cost: Hardware + software bundle is expensive
• Limited to Dentsply Sirona ecosystem: Can't use third-party scanners or mills
• Less design control: The software makes many decisions automatically
• Not ideal for complex cases: Limited support for RPDs, full dentures, complex implants
• Lab integration: Limited collaboration with external labs (though improving with CEREC SW)
• No perpetual software license: Software tied to hardware purchase

Best For

• Dental clinics wanting same-visit restorations
• Dentists who want to design and mill in-house
• Practices that value speed and simplicity over flexibility
• Single-visit crown cases: CEREC's core strength
• Practices willing to invest in the complete CEREC ecosystem

Feature-by-Feature Comparison

Crown and Bridge

• exocad: Full control over every design parameter. Excellent for complex cases. Manual adjustment of every surface.
• 3Shape: Strong automatic proposals with good manual override. Efficient for high-volume labs.
• CEREC: Biogeneric design is fast and accurate for single units. Less control for complex bridges.

Implant Restorations

• exocad: Most comprehensive implant support. Any implant system via open libraries. Custom abutments, screw-retained, hybrid prostheses.
• 3Shape: Good implant support but some libraries require additional licensing. Integrated workflow with 3Shape scanners.
• CEREC: Limited to Dentsply Sirona implants (Astra, Ankylos, Xive) plus some licensed systems. Not ideal for complex full-arch cases.

Removable Prosthetics (RPD/Dentures)

• exocad: Full RPD module with survey, clasp, and connector design. Full denture module with tooth setup and try-in workflow.
• 3Shape: RPD and denture modules available. Good automation but less manual control than exocad.
• CEREC: Not designed for RPDs or full dentures. Focused on fixed restorations.

Orthodontics

• exocad: Basic orthodontic analysis. Not a primary focus.
• 3Shape: Best-in-class orthodontic module. Clear aligner design, model analysis, treatment planning.
• CEREC: Orthodontic module available (CEREC Ortho) but less comprehensive than 3Shape.

Same-Visit Restorations

• exocad: Possible but requires separate scanner and mill — not optimized for chairside.
• 3Shape: Possible with TRIOS scanner and compatible mill, but workflow is lab-oriented.
• CEREC: Best-in-class for same-visit. Scan-design-mill in 60-90 minutes.

Cost Comparison

| Cost Factor | exocad | 3Shape | CEREC | |-------------|--------|--------|-------| | Software license | $5,000-$15,000 (perpetual) or $2,000-$4,000/year | $3,000-$6,000/year (subscription) | Bundled with hardware | | Scanner | $10,000-$40,000 (any brand) | $15,000-$40,000 (3Shape) | $20,000-$50,000 (Primescan) | | Mill | $15,000-$60,000 (any brand) | $20,000-$60,000 (3Shape or third-party) | $25,000-$70,000 (CEREC) | | 5-year TCO | Lowest | Medium | Highest |

Which Should You Choose?

Choose exocad If:

• You're a dental lab that wants flexibility and open architecture
• You want to own your software (perpetual license)
• You work with multiple implant systems
• You need RPD and full denture design capabilities
• You already have scanners or mills from different manufacturers
• You want the lowest total cost of ownership

Choose 3Shape If:

• You want an integrated scanner + software ecosystem
• You prioritize frequent updates and new features
• You do significant orthodontic work
• You value automation and workflow efficiency
• You're willing to pay an ongoing subscription

Choose CEREC If:

• You're a dental clinic wanting same-visit restorations
• You want the fastest and simplest workflow
• You want a fully integrated scanner-software-mill system
• You primarily do single-unit crowns and small bridges
• You're willing to invest in the complete CEREC ecosystem

Summary

exocad, 3Shape, and CEREC serve different segments of the dental CAD market. exocad is the open-architecture choice for labs that want flexibility, any scanner/mill compatibility, and perpetual licensing — ideal for labs doing complex cases including implants, RPDs, and full dentures. 3Shape is the integrated ecosystem choice for labs that want scanner-software integration, frequent updates, and strong orthodontic capabilities, accepting subscription pricing. CEREC is the chairside choice for clinics wanting same-visit restorations with the fastest and simplest workflow, accepting a closed system. For dental labs, exocad offers the best value and flexibility. For dental clinics focused on same-visit dentistry, CEREC is the clear leader. For labs wanting an integrated solution with strong ortho capabilities, 3Shape is the middle ground.