<h2 style="text-align:justify">The Hidden Bill: Chairtime, Adjustments, and Remakes 
&nbsp;</h2>

Centric relation (CR) errors don&rsquo;t just &ldquo;feel off&rdquo; clinically&mdash;they generate a measurable cost. When a case returns with occlusal discrepancies, the dentist spends chairtime, the lab spends rework time, and the patient loses confidence. A digital facebow workflow is best understood as a cost-control mechanism: it reduces variability in jaw relationship transfer, which reduces downstream correction.

&nbsp;

From the clinic&rsquo;s perspective, CR problems show up as high spots, unstable occlusion, or a restoration that &ldquo;almost seats.&rdquo; From the lab&rsquo;s perspective, it&rsquo;s extra finishing, redesign, or remanufacture. The economic pain is shared&mdash;so the workflow choice should be economic too.

&nbsp;

<div class="fw fl mt10 mb15">
 <div class="w90p ml5p fl">
 <img class="blog_editor_image" alt="" src="https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/repair.dental/uploads/articles/centric-relation-recording-step-by-step.webp" />
 </div>
 
 <div class="fw fl">
 <div class="tc mt10 mb15 cgrey">
 
 centric relation recording step by step
 on
 <a href="https://repair.dental/repairguru/"
 class="cgrey b no_underline" 
 target="_blank"
 rel="noopener noreferrer"
 >
 Repair Guru
 </a>
 
 </div>
 </div>
 
 </div>

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Cost Centre Mapping: Where CR Variability Burns Money 
&nbsp;</h2>

Most labs underestimate how many departments pay for a weak CR record:

<ul>
	<li>
	Scanning team: extra verification scans, re-alignment attempts
	</li>
	<li>
	Design team: manual contact corrections and articulation tweaking
	</li>
	<li>
	Finishing team: grinding, polishing, re-checking, re-staining
	</li>
	<li>
	Client support: calls, photos, explanations, dispute handling
	</li>
	<li>
	Clinician: chairside occlusal adjustment, additional visits
	</li>
	<li>
	Lab owner: opportunity cost (capacity used on fixing old work)
	</li>
</ul>

The &ldquo;repair&rdquo; mistake we see at Repair.Dental is labs blaming scanners for alignment drift when the input relationship is unstable. A digital facebow helps create repeatable articulation data, so you stop paying for the same uncertainty twice.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Dental Insight: Why Dentists Care Even When They Don&rsquo;t Say &ldquo;Facebow&rdquo; 
&nbsp;</h2>

Dentists rarely request a digital facebow because they&rsquo;re thinking about &ldquo;data transfer.&rdquo; They care because it impacts:

<ul>
	<li>
	predictable occlusal scheme
	</li>
	<li>
	fewer adjustments on delivery
	</li>
	<li>
	reduced risk of post-op sensitivity from heavy occlusion
	</li>
	<li>
	faster appointments and smoother patient experience
	</li>
</ul>

A workflow that reduces occlusal surprises becomes a practice efficiency advantage&mdash;dentists notice that, even if they never mention CR by name.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">ROI Model: When Does Digital Facebow Pay Off? 
&nbsp;</h2>

A cost analysis isn&rsquo;t complicated if you measure two things: frequency of occlusal rework and cost per incident.

Key inputs to estimate monthly impact:

<ul>
	<li>
	cases per month requiring CR-level precision
	</li>
	<li>
	percentage requiring chairside adjustment beyond &ldquo;normal&rdquo;
	</li>
	<li>
	remake percentage linked to articulation errors
	</li>
	<li>
	average lab minutes spent correcting per incident
	</li>
	<li>
	average clinic minutes spent adjusting per incident
	</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Table: Simple Cost Calculator (Plug In Your Own Numbers)</h2>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<table align="center" style="width:900px">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th>Variable</th>
			<th>Example Value</th>
			<th>Notes</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">CR-sensitive cases/month</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">80</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">full-arch, complex restorations, rehab</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Extra adjustment rate</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">15%</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">beyond minor polishing</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Remake rate (CR-related)</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">3%</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">conservative estimate</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Lab rework time/incident</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">25 min</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">design + finishing</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Clinic chairtime/incident</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">20 min</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">adjust + verify</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Remake total cost</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">&pound;120&ndash;&pound;250</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">materials + labour + shipping</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

Even if the digital facebow reduces only a fraction of that, the savings can be significant because you&rsquo;re cutting repeat errors, not one-off mistakes.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Where Digital Facebow Reduces Cost (Mechanism, Not Hype) 
&nbsp;</h2>

A digital facebow workflow reduces cost by improving:

<ul>
	<li>
	mounting consistency across technicians
	</li>
	<li>
	relationship transfer accuracy into digital articulation
	</li>
	<li>
	repeatability when cases are rescanned or revised
	</li>
	<li>
	communication clarity when clinicians provide records
	</li>
</ul>

That translates into fewer &ldquo;interpretation&rdquo; steps. Interpretation is where the cost hides.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Cost Risk by Case Type (Dentistry-Specific) 
&nbsp;</h2>

Not all cases justify the same investment. The cost impact is highest in:

<ul>
	<li>
	full-arch rehabilitations (small errors multiply)
	</li>
	<li>
	complex occlusal schemes and guidance cases
	</li>
	<li>
	implant frameworks where passive fit matters
	</li>
	<li>
	multi-unit bridges with tight occlusal constraints
	</li>
</ul>

For single-unit posterior crowns with forgiving occlusion, the ROI may be smaller. Cost analysis should match clinical risk.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Table: Where the Money Leaks Most</h2>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<table align="center" style="width:900px">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th>Case Category</th>
			<th>Why CR Errors Cost More</th>
			<th>Typical Outcome</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Full-arch</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">compounded error across many units</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">major chairside adjustment or remake</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Implant frameworks</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">misfit and occlusal instability</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">time-consuming verification</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Multi-unit bridges</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">alignment and contact distribution</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">repeated &ldquo;tweak and check&rdquo; loops</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">High aesthetics rehab</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">function + appearance constraints</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">delayed delivery + patient dissatisfaction</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Implementation Cost: What Labs Actually Spend 
&nbsp;</h2>

The cost is rarely just the device. Include:

<ul>
	<li>
	training time for consistent capture and transfer
	</li>
	<li>
	SOP creation and QC checks
	</li>
	<li>
	integration steps (software, articulation workflow)
	</li>
	<li>
	documentation templates for clinics
	</li>
</ul>

The goal is reducing variance, so spend the money where it removes variance: process control and repeatability.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Anonymised Buyer-Type Feedback (What Decision-Makers Say) 
&nbsp;</h2>

Composite comments we commonly hear in B2B environments:

<ul>
	<li>
	&ldquo;We reduced delivery appointment friction&mdash;dentists stopped flagging occlusion.&rdquo;
	</li>
	<li>
	&ldquo;We now have a defensible record when a clinic questions bite.&rdquo;
	</li>
	<li>
	&ldquo;Our remake conversations became calmer because data is clearer.&rdquo;
	</li>
</ul>

Notice how none of that is &ldquo;the scans look prettier.&rdquo; It&rsquo;s cost and confidence.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Repair.Dental Perspective: Data That Makes Support Faster 
&nbsp;</h2>

When labs can provide consistent CR records and facebow-linked articulation data, troubleshooting becomes cheaper. You reduce &ldquo;diagnostic churn&rdquo; where teams debate whether the problem is scanner, software, or clinic input. With cleaner records, Repair.Dental can help isolate true equipment issues faster&mdash;meaning less downtime and fewer unnecessary part swaps.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Cost Takeaway: Treat Digital Facebow as an Insurance Policy on Occlusion 
&nbsp;</h2>

If your lab&rsquo;s revenue depends on complex restorative work, you&rsquo;re already paying an &ldquo;occlusal risk tax&rdquo; through adjustments and remakes. A digital facebow workflow is a way to reduce that tax by improving repeatability and lowering the probability of expensive failures.

&nbsp;

Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI, S900 ARTI, or S1000 ARTI scanners often deal with camera misalignment, motor failures, or scan distortion. Specialized repairs bring them back to peak performance. Check<a href="https://repair.dental/services/lab-scanner-repair/zirkonzahn-lab-scanner-repair"> Zirkonzahn lab scanner repair services</a> for free diagnostics and 5&ndash;7 day completion.

&nbsp;

<hr />
Please Visit <a href="https://repair.dental/">Repair.Dental</a> or Follow us on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/repair.dental">Facebook</a> &amp; <a href="https://www.instagram.com/repair.dental/">Instagram</a>.

Improve centric relation records using a digital facebow workflow. Increase mounting consistency, and strengthen articulation accuracy.

Centric Relation Recording: Digital Facebow