I’m seeing more remote implant CAD postings where labs want a timed exocad build with 30–50 µm cement gap targets and ASC on MUAs — what screening tasks are you getting, and how hard do they grade path of insertion and contact force? I’m refreshing my test cases (3Shape 2022, Straumann libraries, CBCT merge tolerance ≤0.2 mm) and want to hit the benchmarks that matter to hiring managers.
, the timed builds are getting silly — most of mine were 20–30 min exocad single units on MUAs with ASC, and they graded ‘30–50 µm cement gap’ at the margin and light occlusion harder than PoI. What works: set and lock insertion axis first, run Draw/Undercut, use a ramped gap (30 µm margin to about 70–80 µm internal), and match Straumann library to the scanbody version; I also do a quick CBCT-to-surface overlay to keep ≤0.2 mm and keep ASC under about 25°. Are your testers dinging you more for contact force maps or for a degree or two of undercut?
they grade PoI harder than the 30–50 µm gap — most want zero undercuts to the MUA and ASC kept <25° with the screw access inside the occlusal table. I send a one-pager of screenshots: PoI arrow, collision check, contact heatmap at 8–12 µm, and a CBCT merge delta showing “≤0.2 mm”; it’s cut my dings to near zero. You seeing labs ask for 3Shape 2022 project files plus screenshots, or just the STL?
Echoing @charlie_g84, I pass by sending a tight ‘proof’ set: PoI map, distance color map, and a CBCT overlay with ≤0.15 mm RMS at the scanbody. Most labs also want a ramped cement space (0 at margin, about 80 µm by 1 mm) and a centered ASC channel that doesn’t break a cusp, so I note both in the case. On 3Shape 2022, are they locking you to the Straumann default screw-channel or letting you override diameter/flare?
I’d set up an exocad template with zone‑based gap and a saved MUA+ASC strategy tied to the Straumann library, so you’re not digging for settings under a 25‑min clock. In my screens, they weigh driver clearance and channel emergence heavily, so I run a quick collision check and include a proof shot; if you’re targeting CBCT merge ≤0.20 mm, show the registration stats. Does your “timed build” include articulation, or just static contacts?