Inspect the proposal's inputs
exocad describes an automatically fitted single-tooth proposal based on the default anatomy library and identified neighboring contact locations. The documentation also provides ways to change the anatomy library or model tooth. These are anatomy choices, not confirmation of an implant component.
| Observation or task | Action and evidence |
|---|---|
| Library/model | Identify the selected anatomy and why it suits the supplied brief; a library name alone is not a review result. |
| Neighbor context | Inspect which adjacent references were identified, especially when a neighbor is absent or the expected location differs. |
| Opposing reference | Confirm the governing relationship and whether adaptation used the intended reference. |
| Applicable constraints | Use the actual instruction/profile reference; do not infer a permitted minimum from how the proposal looks. |
Separate placement from adaptation
The Place Model Tooth documentation distinguishes shape-preserving morphing, cutting anatomy and no adaptation; it also distinguishes static and dynamic antagonist context. Those choices can explain why a familiar library tooth no longer resembles its preview.
A minimum-thickness option is not interchangeable with an appearance preference. This lesson supplies no reduction setting; if adaptation and requirements conflict, record the conflict for responsible review.
Worked training comparison
On permission-cleared training geometry, retain proposal A with its library, neighbors and adaptation context. Ask the trainer to authorize one controlled comparison B, then record exactly what changed and which parts of the resulting form differ. Do not change library, reference relationship and production settings together and attribute the outcome to one factor.
Example question: did B change because the model selection changed, or because an adaptation mode modified the same model? Keep the model/context evidence visible so a trainer can answer without guessing.
Next step: explain the decision, not just the shape
Submit the worksheet with one marked comparison and the relevant brief requirement. A useful explanation identifies why the initial proposal needed review, what the controlled change affected and what still requires approval.
A trainer can score that reasoning using the existing exercise rubric. Successful automatic placement or a pleasing preview does not establish manufactured fit or clinical outcome.
Validation and limits
Louie validation pending — unverified locally. Louie/trainer must verify installed placement, neighbor-selection and adaptation behavior on authorized training data, and which anatomy libraries are available under the actual license. No material minimum or anatomy choice is approved by this guide; implant-component libraries are a separate workflow.
Use internal references in the blank worksheet. Examples are hypothetical; applicable instructions and responsible approvals govern real work.
Source notes
Official sources checked October 6, 2026. Scope and dates below; installed applicability remains unverified. Worked examples and worksheets are original.
Prepared by Pristine Dental Design · October 6, 2026.