Evaluate Dental CAD Automation After Review and Rework

Ask a narrow evaluation question

Choose one supported task and configuration and ask whether automation changes the total effort needed to produce an accepted handoff. Name the responsible reviewer, permitted data, intended output and baseline before starting. Keep experimental work outside live production until the responsible team authorizes its use.

3Shape's public Automate workflow includes review, approval and an editing option for some received designs. Those are meaningful tasks to observe; this guide adopts no vendor turnaround, acceptance or universal machine-compatibility claim. Actual receiving and production applicability require their own evidence.

Keep the population and counting unit visible

State whether the unit of observation is a case, restoration, proposal or review attempt. Do not divide accepted restorations by submitted cases or quietly remove failed attempts from the denominator. Keep eligibility exclusions distinct from proposals that were generated but not accepted.

For a manual comparison, choose comparable indication/input readiness and define the same endpoint. Record differences in experience, assistance, input changes and configuration. A carefully described small trial can inform an operational decision without establishing a broad clinical or statistical claim.

Measure the whole receiving task

Record preparation, review, edits, clarification and receiving-file verification separately. Note whether you are measuring hands-on minutes or elapsed queue time. Work done by a second reviewer or receiver belongs in the record even when the design-generation stage is fast.

Avoid counting overlapping activity twice. Keep a change in supplied reference separate from correction of a proposal that missed the original brief. If production release is outside the trial, stop the measurement at the stated handoff endpoint and disclose that limit.

Decide what the observations justify

Worked synthetic example, not Pristine results: six eligible restoration attempts produce five proposals. At the stated checkpoint, three are accepted, one rejected, one held and one attempt has no proposal. Accepted at checkpoint is 3/6 attempts; acceptance among returned proposals is 3/5. These answer different questions and must be labelled. The held item is unresolved, not silently discarded.

For one synthetic attempt, preparation takes 2 hands-on minutes, review 3, editing 4 and receiving checks 1: 10 total hands-on minutes. A separate 8-minute wait is elapsed queue time, not additional hands-on effort. Do not apply these illustrative values to a customer quote or claim savings.

Hypothetical example: one pilot proposal requires little editing but several receiving checks, while another waits for a corrected source. The trial records these different effort paths rather than publishing a single generation-time claim. No timings or results are invented here.

Possible outcomes are a narrow follow-up trial, a revised eligibility rule, retained manual review or rejection of the tested route. Tie the decision to observed cases and unresolved limitations. Do not use an internal protocol or blank worksheet as evidence of a measured Pristine advantage.

Validation and limits

Louie validation pending — unverified locally. Louie must validate trial scope, permitted records, baseline comparability, units, effort definitions and actual review decisions. This is an unrun evaluation protocol, not a speed, savings, accuracy or acceptance-rate result or a claim of tested Pristine automation.

Use internal references in the blank worksheet. Examples are hypothetical; applicable instructions and responsible approvals govern real work.