Start with the record relationship
Confirm which bite and reference records are current and approved. If multiple records disagree, ask the submitting team for direction. Repositioning arches until they look plausible is not a substitute for an identified clinical relationship.
Make preferences explicit
Provide the receiving lab’s contact and occlusal requirements together with material and production settings. There is no single numeric setting suitable for all workflows. Separate routine defaults from exceptions directed for the case.
Review the geometry in context
Check adjacent units, intended anatomy and the supplied opposing arch. For bridges and larger cases, review the relevant relationships across the design rather than looking at isolated units only. Reference-driven changes need a clear record of what the team approved.
Distinguish CAD from physical verification
Software views and contact maps represent the available digital information. Production, finishing and clinical evaluation remain necessary stages. A CAD screenshot cannot demonstrate the final restoration’s patient outcome.
Give actionable revision notes
Identify the unit, view and requested adjustment. Tie the request to the current design version and approved brief. If a new clinical record changes the relationship, label it as new input so dependent designs can be reconsidered.
Ask for evidence, not just a color map
A single view can hide the record or design version on which a review depends. Ask for a small, consistent set of views that answers the actual question. For a new or changed relationship, confirm the governing record before interpreting the resulting contact display.
| Review question | Useful context | What the view does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Does the design follow the approved relationship? | Named bite/reference record, arch context and current revision. | That an unverified record represents the intended clinical relationship. |
| Which contact is being changed? | Affected unit, adjacent/opposing geometry and a marked location. | A universal correct contact value for every material and workflow. |
| Will a local change affect other units? | Connected units and the relevant cross-arch reference. | That checking an isolated crown is enough for a larger staged case. |
| Which file may be manufactured? | Approved revision and the agreed manufacturing file set. | Physical fit or clinical outcome after production. |
Make the revision bounded and reviewable
Illustrative wording: “In revision C, review the marked proximal area on the identified unit against the approved lab preference. Preserve the approved reference relationship. Return the same review view and identify any related geometry changed.” This is a communication example, not a prescribed adjustment.
If the request instead introduces a new bite record, label it as new input. Identify designs that depended on the replaced record and decide which approvals must be repeated. The blank revision brief can capture the unit, view, request and changed-input status without supplying clinical settings.
Prepared by Pristine Dental Design · October 6, 2026. Workflow guidance for dental professionals. Case-specific instructions and receiving-team approval govern actual design and production.