Digital planning services

Clear aligner treatment planning

Professional digital setup and staging for clear aligner cases.

Clear aligner treatment planning turns a pair of intraoral scans and a written prescription into a staged, reviewable digital plan. Each tooth is segmented from the upper and lower scans, a setup is built to the finish you have prescribed, and then the harder question is answered: how the teeth travel there. That means how much movement each aligner carries, which teeth move together and which are held, where attachments are needed to give the aligner purchase, and where interproximal reduction creates space. Occlusion and collisions are checked across the sequence, not only at the end. What comes back is a versioned plan you open in the browser: a stage-by-stage simulation, a per-tooth movement table, an attachment map and an IPR chart. You comment, we revise, and nothing is prepared for production until you approve a version.

• Per-tooth segmentation of both arches from your STL, PLY or OBJ meshes, with crown anatomy preserved
• A digital setup built to your written prescription, with a movement table per tooth in millimetres and degrees
• Sequential staging with a stated per-stage limit for each movement type
• Attachment shape, tooth in FDI notation, and the stage each attachment is bonded and removed
• An IPR schedule in tenths of a millimetre, contact by contact, tied to the stage it is performed
• Occlusal contact and interference review across the staged sequence, not only at the final stage
• A stage-by-stage 3D simulation from initial position to planned finish
• Revisions from your tooth-specific, stage-specific or attachment-specific comments, issued as new numbered versions
• Approved models and treatment data prepared for your laboratory or manufacturing partner after sign-off

Orthodontic digital setups

3D tooth positioning and treatment simulation based on prescribed treatment goals.

A digital setup is the orthodontic study model rebuilt in three dimensions and moved to the position you want the case to finish in. It answers one question precisely: what does this dentition look like when your objectives are met? Each tooth is segmented, given a long axis, and positioned against a chosen arch form, a decided midline, and stated overjet and overbite targets, with the arches articulated so posterior contact can be judged rather than assumed. The setup is where the disagreements happen, which is the point of producing it before staging. You get initial and final models side by side, a per-tooth movement table in millimetres and degrees, and notes on any objective that could not be reached without a change you have not prescribed. You approve it, revise it, or take it straight to staging.

• Segmented 3D models of both arches with a long axis assigned to every tooth
• Teeth positioned to your prescribed finish, arch by arch and quadrant by quadrant
• Arch form selected or matched to the pre-treatment form, and stated on the plan
• Dental midline related to the opposing midline and to the facial midline from your photographs
• Overjet and overbite recorded at the finish, with the curve of Spee levelled to the depth you specify
• Occlusal contact review in maximum intercuspation on the articulated models
• A movement table per tooth: translation in millimetres, tipping, torque and rotation in degrees
• Initial and final models delivered together so the change is visible rather than described

IPR planning

Digital interproximal reduction planning with tooth-by-tooth documentation.

Interproximal reduction only works when everyone knows how much, where and when. IPR planning starts from a space analysis on the segmented models: how much crowding exists in each arch, how much of it the arch form and the incisor position can absorb, and how much genuinely has to be met by removing enamel. Only the remainder becomes IPR, and it is then placed contact by contact next to the teeth that need the space, sequenced to the stage at which a strip or disc can actually reach the contact. You get an amount per contact in tenths of a millimetre, an arch and quadrant total, the stage each reduction is performed at, and a printable chart for the chair. Where expansion or proclination would serve better than stripping, the plan says so.

• A space analysis per arch: crowding or spacing in millimetres, and how much each strategy contributes
• IPR amount per contact in tenths of a millimetre, written by the two teeth in FDI notation
• The aligner stage at which each reduction is performed
• Running totals per quadrant and per arch, so the cumulative enamel removal is visible at a glance
• A printable chairside IPR chart, laid out in arch order
• Contacts where expansion, proclination or a change in arch form would replace stripping, with the trade-off stated
• Contacts deliberately left untouched, and why, so an omission is not read as an oversight

Attachment planning

Strategic attachment placement and visualization.

An aligner is a smooth shell over smooth crowns, and on its own it can push a tooth over but struggles to lift it, rotate it or move its root. Attachments are the composite features that give the plastic something to act against, and planning them is a mechanical exercise, not a cosmetic one: each attachment is chosen from the movement it has to produce or resist, positioned on the crown where that force does the intended work, and scheduled to the stage where the movement begins and the stage where it is no longer needed. You get an attachment map on the 3D setup, a bonding list by FDI tooth number with shape, surface and position, and the stages each attachment is placed and removed. Where you would rather avoid a visible attachment, the plan shows what that costs.

• Attachment shape and dimensions per tooth, described in plain geometric terms rather than brand names
• Position on the crown: surface, and height relative to the gingival margin and incisal or occlusal edge
• The movement each attachment exists to produce or to resist, stated tooth by tooth
• The stage each attachment is bonded and the stage it is removed
• A 3D visualisation of the attachment set on the planned setup, viewable stage by stage
• A bonding list in FDI notation for the chair, and attachment geometry carried into the production models for template design
• Aesthetic-zone alternatives where you ask for them, with the control they give up written out
• Teeth deliberately left without attachments, and the reason, so an omission reads as a decision

Treatment staging

Organize planned tooth movements into sequential aligner stages.

A setup shows where the teeth finish. Staging decides how they get there, and it is where most aligner cases succeed or stop tracking. Staging answers four questions: how much each tooth moves per aligner, which movements happen at the same time and which wait their turn, which teeth are being used as anchorage and whether they can hold, and where the plan should ask for more than the target so the result lands on it. Every one of those choices changes the stage count, so the count is an output of the plan rather than a number set at the start. You get the movements divided into numbered stages with the limits stated openly, a sequencing rationale for the difficult movements, the stage count per arch, and a simulation you can play and comment on stage by stage.

• Planned movements divided into numbered sequential stages, arch by arch
• The per-stage limit applied to each movement type, stated rather than implied
• Sequencing of difficult movements, with the reason each was placed early, late or alone
• Anchorage plan: which teeth are held, what holds them, and where reciprocal movement is expected
• Any planned overcorrection, named tooth by tooth, so it is never mistaken for the target
• Stage count per arch, and where the arches are held in step or allowed to run at different lengths
• A stage-by-stage 3D simulation from initial position to final stage
• Interference and collision checks run across the sequence, not only at the finish

Revision and refinement planning

Modify existing setups from your comments, and plan refinements from a new scan.

Two different pieces of work share this page. A revision changes a plan that has not yet been made: you have reviewed a version, something does not match your intent, and the setup, staging, attachments or IPR are altered and reissued as a new numbered version with a change log against the old one. A refinement replans a case that is already in treatment, from a fresh scan of where the teeth actually are. The two are different because their starting data is different: a revision works from the same records, while a refinement has to measure what expressed and what did not before it can plan anything. In both, the earlier version is preserved rather than overwritten, the case number stays the same, and what changed is written down so that you can see it rather than reconstruct it.

• A new numbered version of the plan, with the previous version preserved and still viewable
• A change log naming what was altered: which teeth, which stages, which attachments, which IPR contacts
• For refinements, a residual movement table measured from the new scan against the original target
• For refinements, a record of IPR already performed, so no contact is scheduled for reduction twice
• Restaged sequence for the remaining movements, with the per-stage limits stated as in any staged plan
• A revised attachment set: which existing attachments are kept, which are removed, and which are added
• Comparison of the original target, the position actually reached, and the new plan's target

Complex case planning

Detailed digital planning for selected challenging cases, with additional review rounds.

Some cases do not fit a standard workflow, not because the software is different but because the decisions are. Extraction space closure has an anchorage problem before it has a movement problem. A deep bite has to be resolved by a route you choose, and the three available routes have different mechanics and different stability. A periodontally reduced dentition changes where the centre of resistance sits on every tooth involved. A case heading for restorative work has to finish where the restorations need it, not where the arch would naturally settle. Complex case planning takes longer, carries more documented reasoning and includes additional review rounds, because the value is in the discussion before the geometry, and the case selection remains yours.

• A written plan of approach before the setup is built, so the strategy is agreed rather than assumed
• Explicit anchorage analysis where the case demands it, including where staging alone will not be sufficient
• Alternative approaches where more than one is defensible, set out with the trade-offs rather than a single answer
• Extended staging with the difficult movements sequenced and their per-stage limits stated separately
• Additional review rounds built into the workflow, rather than treated as extra revisions
• Documentation of every compromise: what was not achievable within the prescription and what would change it
• Where restorative work follows, the finishing positions the restorations require, marked tooth by tooth

Lab-ready digital files

Approved digital models and treatment data prepared for downstream production workflows.

An approved plan is not yet a production job. The models a laboratory prints and thermoforms have to be watertight, oriented, based, labelled and unambiguous, and the data that travels alongside them, attachment geometry, trim lines, IPR amounts and stage numbers, has to say the same thing as the models. File preparation is the step that turns an approved version into that package. It happens after your approval and changes nothing clinical: the tooth positions are the ones you signed off, stage by stage. What it adds is the mechanical hygiene a production workflow needs, in the formats and naming conventions your laboratory actually uses, so that files arrive ready to print rather than ready to be argued about.

• Per-stage arch models for both arches, exported from the approved version
• Meshes checked for production: watertight, correctly oriented, free of inverted normals and stray shells
• Attachment geometry present on the models at the stages it is bonded, and absent at the stages it is not
• A trim line for each stage, cut to the height agreed with your laboratory rather than assumed
• Model bases prepared to the specification your laboratory works to, including any hollowing or labelling it requires
• Stage numbers and arch identification embossed or labelled on the models where the laboratory asks for it
• The IPR schedule and attachment list exported as documents that accompany the models
• A consistent file naming convention, agreed once and applied to every case