Check evidence and relevance
Look for actual design work with clear labels, relevant indications and identifiable people. Distinguish CAD views from clinical outcome photographs. Experience in routine crowns does not demonstrate competence in every implant or removable workflow.
Ask operational questions
Confirm software versions, components, deliverables, review responsibility and exception handling. Ask what happens when a scan is incomplete or a library cannot be identified. A sensible clarification process is more useful than a claim that every file can be handled instantly.
Make the pilot representative
Choose work similar to the cases you plan to send, with a defined brief and expected output. Include an ordinary exception if exceptions are common in your queue. Compare vendors against the same records and instructions.
Ask for a precise exception example
Use a business-level scenario: the supplied component name is incomplete, or the record set includes two different bite versions. Ask what information the provider would request, who receives the question and whether dependent work proceeds. This does not require sharing a patient record. A useful answer names the missing information and the responsible decision owner. Avoid equating confidence or speed of reply with technical accuracy; verify the actual workflow on authorized representative work.
Use a worksheet instead of an unexplained rating
For each criterion, record the provider’s answer, observed pilot behavior and any unresolved requirement. Mark a requirement as supported, not yet tested or not supported for the proposed scope. A simple compatibility problem should not be hidden in an averaged five-star score. The downloadable provider worksheet keeps factual observations separate from assumptions. It does not create an independent ranking or a certification of any company.
Decide what happens after approval
Ask how preferences are maintained across future cases and how the provider handles a changed software version or material. Agree who can change the brief and how a change is recorded. Confirm file ownership and the terms applicable to the actual transfer route directly with the provider. A polished site, an attractive portfolio or an initial successful case is a useful starting point, but repeat-work accountability depends on explicit terms and a tested handoff.
Score the complete handoff
Record communication, import compatibility, conformance to the brief and revision handling. Mark unresolved requirements separately from preference differences. Have the appropriate lab team approve technical and manufacturing suitability.
Review the terms before scaling
Clarify costs, scope changes, revision limits, file ownership and handling of case records. Do not infer protections or certification from a website’s visual quality. Pristine offers a paid scoped test case; the objective is to establish whether the workflow fits your lab.
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.