BUYER RESOURCES

How to Prepare an Implant CAD Outsourcing Pilot

An implant pilot should test the component chain and receiving production route, not just the appearance of a crown. Use a complete, representative case with explicit approvals.

Choose a representative supported case

Identify the restoration and retention approach you intend to outsource repeatedly. Include the actual component and library requirements. A simple implant crown does not validate every full-arch or custom-abutment workflow.

Confirm identification before design

Have the submitting team confirm the physical scan body, implant platform, restorative component and library/version. Note any uncertainty in writing. A designer should not choose a likely component to keep an otherwise incomplete case moving.

Define what the pilot will return

Specify the review stage and whether you need separate component files, a native case or manufacturing meshes. Confirm the software and material/production route. Ask how changes to components or records affect the scope.

Evaluate the complete output

Review conformance to the approved brief, file compatibility and component traceability. Involve the production team in the handoff check. A visually appealing file does not establish clinical fit, passive fit or approval to manufacture through an unsupported route.

Capture what was learned

Record accepted preferences, questions and revision reasons. Identify any unresolved requirement before sending repeat cases. Pristine scopes implant work individually; clinical planning and final manufacturing approval remain with the responsible teams.

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.

A DEFINED FIRST STEP

Discuss the work.
Define the handoff.

One paid test case, quoted to scope. Delivery target and revision terms agreed before work starts.

Request a test-case quote

Identify the scan body and trace its evidence chain

An external implant handoff needs the physical component identity as well as the digital library selection. Record manufacturer, exact part/catalog identifier, implant system/platform, connection level, scan record revision and intended prosthetic component. A visually similar mesh or a successful library selection is not confirmation of the physical part.

Elos's ScanBody22 product page illustrates why broad product-family statements need qualification: its backwards-compatibility statement includes an exception for Nobel Biocare CC. This is not a substitute for the exact part instructions or a Pristine compatibility list. Obtain the applicable current manufacturer instructions before prescribing capture, handling or reuse.

exocad's library directory says official libraries target the latest software version and warns about older releases and legacy packages. Record package identity/date and installed release, and ask the supplier about applicability. Library availability does not establish physical component fit.

Hypothetical example: the sending practice supplies an unnamed scan-body mesh and a familiar implant-system label. The reviewer requests the exact part identifier and applicable instructions, holds component-dependent design and records who must resolve it. Do not select a look-alike library or infer seated/correct capture from appearance alone.

Original review worksheet
Record or decisionEvidence to record
Physical identityManufacturer; exact part; platform/connection level; documented identification source.
Capture questionVisible unresolved feature; source record; qualified reviewer; exact IFU needed.
Digital identityCAD release/module; library package/date/component; supplier applicability evidence.
External responsibilityDesign/review/production role; held decisions; approval owner; receiving pilot result.

Download the blank review worksheet (CSV)

Louie validation required — unverified locally. Actual installed software behavior, record dependencies, acceptance and Pristine compatibility require authorized configuration-specific validation. Hypothetical examples do not authorize clinical decisions, mesh repair or manufacturing release.

Official sources checked October 6, 2026; installed-release applicability remains pending.

Continue with Triage a Dental CAD Component Identification Mismatch; Run a Scanner-to-CAD Interoperability Pilot.

3Shape: A Library Is Not Allowed to Be Produced Locally