Byte Sized DentistryDesign tools that show the trade-offs
File Doctor and Implant Doctor are simulators for the two things dentists drive into teeth and bone every day: rotary files and implants. Change one design choice and see how it ripples into clinical outcomes, with the evidence behind each number shown. They're early, they're open about their gaps, and we want to build them with people who know more than we do.
Why build this
Product brochures don't show trade-offs
Every file and implant is a bundle of compromises. A wider taper cleans more but removes more dentine. An aggressive thread raises primary stability but can over-compress dense bone. Clinicians learn these by experience, students learn them as lists, and manufacturers keep the data private. We want one place where the cause and effect is visible and the numbers are checked against published research.
A hands-on way to learn why designs behave the way they do, not just memorise them.
Compare designs on the outcomes you care about, such as separation risk or crestal strain, before you buy.
A fast, transparent sandbox to explore concepts before prototyping or testing.
File Doctor
Design a rotary file and drop it into a straight, moderately curved or severely curved canal. Every change shows which clinical outcomes go up or down, and why.
Works today
- 7 design levers
- 6 clinical outcomes, each with a "why"
- Cause-and-effect grid across every lever
- Comparison with well-known file styles
- Tip size
- Taper
- Body
- Alloy
- Motion
- Tip type
- Helix
What we need next
- Calibration against published cyclic-fatigue and torsional data
- Canal geometries from micro-CT datasets
- FEA checks of the stress model
- Clinician review of the outcome logic
Implant Doctor
Learn implant biomechanics, design your own implant, then check it against the literature. The model is built from physics relationships, with coefficients fitted automatically to published benchmarks. Where it misses, the miss is shown, not tuned away.
Works today
- 7 lessons, from bone quality to surfaces and healing
- Design Studio: thread, pitch, taper, connection, surface and material
- Evidence tab listing every benchmark, the model's value and the error
What we need next
- More published benchmarks: insertion torque, ISQ, fatigue and bone loss
- FEA validation of the crestal-strain model
- Bone density from real CBCT scans, linked to our CBCT Viewer
- Implantologist review of the lessons
Both simulators are educational prototypes. They are not validated for clinical decisions or product claims, and comparisons with commercial products use "-style" approximations.
Who we're looking for
Bring one skill. We'll fit it in.
Clinicians
Endodontists and implantologists who can tell us where the outcome logic doesn't match what you see in the chair.
Researchers
People with published or unpublished data on cyclic fatigue, torque, ISQ, FEA or bone density, so we can calibrate and validate.
Engineers
Biomechanics, FEA and materials people, especially NiTi metallurgy and titanium alloys, to sharpen the physics.
Developers
Front-end, 3D/WebGL and data-visualisation developers to turn prototypes into tools people love using.
Universities & industry
Departments and manufacturers interested in piloting, co-developing or licensing the simulators.
Students
BDS and MDS students looking for a project or thesis topic: literature mining, benchmark collection and validation studies.
- Named credit inside the tools for everyone who contributes
- Collaboration on validation studies and publications that come out of the work
- Early access to new versions and a say in what gets built next
- Work on a real product used by dentists, not a slide deck
Join the project
Tell us how you'd like to help
Get involved
Fill this in and it opens WhatsApp with your message ready to send. Nothing is stored on this site. You can also email bytesizeddentistry@gmail.com.