Evidence
The research behind the VeX model
The VeX model is not a feature we invented. It was defined in a peer-reviewed dental-technology paper, together with the clinical reasoning that explains why it matters and what it has to get right.
The source
Stankov S, Cofar F, Norré D, Argint A, De Greef A, Popp I, Nikolov N, Att W, Van Dooren E.
Full-Arch Implants: FP1 — A Digital Reinterpretation.
Quintessence of Dental Technology (QDT), 2025; volume 47.
Published by Quintessence Publishing. We summarise the concept here and do not reproduce the paper; the full text is available from the publisher.
What the paper establishes
The paper sets out a digital reinterpretation of FP1 full-arch treatment, in which design decisions move to the start of the case rather than the end. Patient data — intraoral scans, CBCT imaging, facial photography and jaw-motion recordings — is merged into one layered virtual anatomy, and the prosthetic plan is made against that anatomy before any surgery happens. Manufacturing then copies the plan instead of improvising around the result.
Within that workflow it defines the VeX model: a multilayered model simulating the mouth after the failing teeth are extracted, while capturing the gum architecture before it collapses.
The clinical problem it addresses
An FP1 prosthesis replaces only the crown portion of the failing teeth. The patient keeps their own gum and bone, and the prosthesis has to meet that tissue seamlessly. Success is judged on preserving the papillae — the interdental gum points — both aesthetically and biologically.
The difficulty is one of timing. Papillae begin to collapse within minutes of an extraction. Any reference taken after the teeth come out records tissue that has already changed, which is what makes a model built from pre-extraction scans valuable rather than merely convenient.
The four uses the paper gives the model
- Preserving biologic structures in the design — above all the papillae, kept explicit throughout planning.
- Providing the transmucosal form of the pre-existing anatomy — the socket and root shape below the gum margin, as the reference for tissue stability after extraction.
- Letting surgical guides be fabricated to rest on soft tissue exactly — without pressure, and without removing gum unintentionally.
- Giving the lab a pre-collapse tissue reference when adapting the provisional restoration, because the impression taken at surgery shows loose, collapsing papillae.
Why this shapes how we build the model
Each of those uses turns into a requirement that can be measured, which is how we judge our own output.
- The gum-line cut has to be accurate, because guides and provisionals seat against exactly that margin.
- The interdental regions get the most care, because that is where the tissue the paper cares most about lives.
- The root pockets have to be present and correctly oriented, because clinicians read them as the below-gum anatomy — a socket wall facing the wrong way disappears in CAD software that culls back faces.
- Nothing may be invented. A model that fills a socket with synthesised surface is no longer a record of the patient.
How the generator meets these ›
Further reading
Peer-reviewed work on the tissue behaviour the VeX model exists to capture:
- One-by-one immediate dental implants: a papillae preservation concept — Clinical Case Reports, 2020.
- Interimplant papilla preservation in the esthetic zone — Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent.
- A clinical assessment of the volume of interproximal papilla after implant placement.
- Emergence profile angle and peri-implant health — J Esthet Restor Dent, 2025.
- Contour management of implant restorations for optimal emergence profiles.
- Translucent monolithic zirconia titanium-supported FP1 full-arch prosthesis — J Esthet Restor Dent.
Built on the model the paper defines.
Generate a VeX from two scans — gum surface and root anatomy, crowns removed at the gum line, nothing invented.
Create a VeX model ↗