<h2 style="text-align:justify">The Standardisation Dividend: How Bases Affect Profit per Case 
&nbsp;</h2>

Model bases look boring&mdash;until they sabotage scanning. A scanner-compatible base is not a &ldquo;nice-to-have&rdquo;; it&rsquo;s a standardisation asset that directly reduces rescan loops, alignment errors, and labour waste. In cost terms, inconsistent base design adds friction at every stage: scanning, alignment, articulation, and QC.

&nbsp;

At Repair.Dental, we see labs replace components to &ldquo;fix alignment,&rdquo; then later discover the true culprit: models that don&rsquo;t seat consistently, don&rsquo;t present stable reference geometry, or don&rsquo;t fit trays reliably. That&rsquo;s avoidable spend.

&nbsp;

<div class="fw fl mt10 mb15">
 <div class="w90p ml5p fl">
 <img class="blog_editor_image" alt="" height="500" src="https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/repair.dental/uploads/articles/model-base-design-implications.webp" width="750" />
 </div>
 
 <div class="fw fl">
 <div class="tc mt10 mb15 cgrey">
 
 model base design implications
 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 Anatomy of a Non-Compatible Base 
&nbsp;</h2>

When bases aren&rsquo;t scanner-friendly, you pay in small recurring charges that quietly become big:

<ul>
	<li>
	extra minutes per case to reposition and retry
	</li>
	<li>
	increased rescans due to seating wobble
	</li>
	<li>
	more manual alignment in CAD
	</li>
	<li>
	higher QC failure rate because relationships shift
	</li>
	<li>
	more calls from clinics when contacts/occlusion aren&rsquo;t consistent
	</li>
</ul>

These are variable costs that grow with volume&mdash;meaning the &ldquo;tax&rdquo; scales as your lab grows.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Dental Insight: Base Errors Become Clinical Fit Issues 
&nbsp;</h2>

Dentists experience base-related scanning issues indirectly:

<ul>
	<li>
	occlusal mismatch that requires chairside correction
	</li>
	<li>
	contacts shifting between try-in and final seating
	</li>
	<li>
	inconsistent bite records when models don&rsquo;t sit predictably
	</li>
</ul>

They won&rsquo;t say &ldquo;your base geometry is poor.&rdquo; They&rsquo;ll say &ldquo;this case feels off.&rdquo; That feedback is expensive because it&rsquo;s hard to argue against and easy for competitors to exploit.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Table: Typical Waste Caused by Inconsistent Model Bases</h2>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<table align="center" style="width:900px">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th>Waste Type</th>
			<th>What Triggers It</th>
			<th>Cost Result</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Rescan attempts</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">rocking/unstable seating</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">higher labour per case</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">CAD re-alignment</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">missing reference geometry</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">longer design time</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">QC rejections</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">inconsistent articulation setup</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">delayed delivery</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Remakes</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">compounded misalignment</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">highest-cost failure</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Support overhead</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">clinic questions + file disputes</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">non-billable time</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">What &ldquo;Scanner Compatibility&rdquo; Actually Means 
&nbsp;</h2>

A compatible base gives the scanner:

<ul>
	<li>
	stable seating with no wobble
	</li>
	<li>
	predictable reference geometry for alignment
	</li>
	<li>
	sufficient clearance for optics and turntable motion
	</li>
	<li>
	consistency across pours and technicians
	</li>
</ul>

Compatibility is less about a specific brand and more about repeatable geometry.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Cost-First Design Rules (Simple, Effective) 
&nbsp;</h2>

If your objective is reducing cost per case, base design should prioritise:

<ul>
	<li>
	flatness and stability (no rocking)
	</li>
	<li>
	consistent base thickness and perimeter
	</li>
	<li>
	preserved registration zones (don&rsquo;t trim them away)
	</li>
	<li>
	predictable placement on trays/fixtures
	</li>
	<li>
	standardised orientation rules (front/back cue)
	</li>
</ul>

The cheaper your alignment step becomes, the more profitable scanning becomes.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Table: Base Design Choice vs Expected Cost Impact</h2>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<table align="center" style="width:900px">
	<thead>
		<tr>
			<th>Design Approach</th>
			<th>Expected Impact on Cost</th>
			<th>Why</th>
		</tr>
	</thead>
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Variable bases by technician</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Higher cost</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">alignment becomes human-dependent</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Standardised base template</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Lower cost</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">repeatable seating and scan orientation</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Added keyed geometry</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Lower cost</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">reduces manual alignment time</td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="text-align:center">Oversized/irregular base</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">Higher cost</td>
			<td style="text-align:center">tray fit issues and capture shadows</td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">The CFO View: Calculate &ldquo;Minutes Lost per Case&rdquo; 
&nbsp;</h2>

A simple method for decision-makers:

<ol>
	<li>
	Measure average scanning + alignment time for 50 cases
	</li>
	<li>
	Identify how many needed reseating/rescans
	</li>
	<li>
	Compute extra minutes per affected case
	</li>
	<li>
	Multiply by labour rate and monthly volume
	</li>
</ol>

Even a small increase&mdash;like 2 extra minutes per case&mdash;can become a major monthly cost at scale.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Composite Shop-Floor Feedback (Anonymised) 
&nbsp;</h2>

What teams commonly report after standardising bases:

<ul>
	<li>
	&ldquo;We stopped fighting the tray&mdash;placement became automatic.&rdquo;
	</li>
	<li>
	&ldquo;Alignment is faster because reference areas are consistent.&rdquo;
	</li>
	<li>
	&ldquo;New staff got up to speed quicker&mdash;less tribal knowledge.&rdquo;
	</li>
</ul>

Those are cost savings in training time, throughput, and QC stability.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Repair.Dental Perspective: Fewer False Diagnostics 
&nbsp;</h2>

Inconsistent bases create symptoms that mimic scanner issues: apparent drift, misalignment, and repeated calibration attempts. When bases are standardised, you reduce &ldquo;false equipment alarms.&rdquo; That means service calls become more accurate and cheaper&mdash;both for your lab and when Repair.Dental supports diagnostics.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Cost Takeaway: Base Standardisation Is a Compounding Gain 
&nbsp;</h2>

This is not a one-time improvement. Standardised base design reduces labour on every case, reduces downstream clinic friction, and improves repeatability. The savings compound with volume&mdash;making it one of the most scalable cost-reduction moves a lab can make.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Throughput Acceleration: Small Geometry, Big Output Gains 
&nbsp;</h2>

Standardised bases do more than reduce errors&mdash;they increase daily case capacity. When seating is automatic and alignment is predictable, technicians move from correction mode to production mode. That shift improves cases per hour without increasing headcount. In high-volume labs, geometry consistency becomes a throughput multiplier rather than a technical preference.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Training Efficiency: Reducing Skill Dependency 
&nbsp;</h2>

Non-standard bases create reliance on experienced technicians who &ldquo;know how to fix it.&rdquo; Standardisation reduces tribal knowledge dependence and shortens onboarding time. New staff can follow defined placement and orientation protocols with minimal supervision. Lower training friction translates into faster ramp-up and fewer early-stage mistakes.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Digital Workflow Stability: Cleaner Data In, Cleaner Results Out 
&nbsp;</h2>

Scanner performance is only as stable as the physical input. Consistent base geometry produces cleaner datasets with fewer artefacts, fewer shadow zones, and more reliable occlusal references. That stability improves downstream CAD predictability and reduces adjustment loops before milling or printing.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Client Retention Economics: Consistency Builds Trust 
&nbsp;</h2>

Clinical partners value predictability more than perfection. When contacts seat consistently and occlusion behaves as expected, confidence increases. Fewer remakes and fewer &ldquo;this feels off&rdquo; comments protect reputation equity. Over time, reliability becomes a differentiator that reduces price sensitivity.

&nbsp;

<h2 style="text-align:justify">Operational Risk Reduction: Eliminating Hidden Volatility 
&nbsp;</h2>

Irregular bases introduce variability into what should be a controlled workflow. Variability creates scheduling uncertainty, delivery risk, and reactive firefighting. Standardisation converts variable inefficiency into controlled process flow&mdash;reducing operational volatility and protecting margins at scale.

&nbsp;

When your Zirkonzahn scanner won&#39;t power up or delivers poor data quality, fast expert intervention is key. Enjoy no hidden fees and secure shipping. Explore<a href="https://repair.dental/services/lab-scanner-repair/zirkonzahn-lab-scanner-repair"> expert Zirkonzahn scanner service</a> for dental labs seeking speed and reliability.

&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>.

Standardise model base design for scanner compatibility. Improve seating and alignment also to reduce rescans.

Model Base Design: Scanner Compatibility