Case Portfolio Strategy and Patient Selection

Working planning document. Patient shortlist generated 2026-05-03 from the live Notion patient database (Patients Directory + Clinical Notes & Episodes + Medical History Log + Treatment Plans). Update as treatment progresses.

1. Why this document exists

The DMD3 Case Portfolio is summative in DENT5311 (semester 2) but the formative slide deck is due in DENT5310 (semester 1). The summative exam allocates 45 minutes — 15-20 min presentation + 20-25 min questions, with two examiners, possibly an observer, and the choice of who you face is opaque. Selecting patients early is the single biggest lever on outcome — it determines how much treatment you can complete before the exam window, how much records collection time you have, and whether the case has multi-disciplinary depth.

This document does three things:

1. Synthesises the rubric criteria from the 2026 tip lecture and the formatting suggestions document into a single self-audit checklist.
2. Locks the mandatory composition — 5 case categories + endo + exo — and identifies where each lives in the portfolio.
3. Names specific patients from the database for each slot, with full mini-summaries for primaries and brief hooks for backups, plus the records and treatment gaps to close before the exam.

2. What makes a great Case Portfolio — rubric synthesis

Use this as a self-audit list. Run every case against it before submission.

2.1 Selection

• Multi-disciplinary cases (endo + perio + pros) and complex polypharmacy with completed control phase are explicitly rewarded.
• Avoid VD reconstruction or full-arch rehabs at DMD3 — guaranteed grilling.
• Choose reliable patients: low cancellation rate, good attendance, motivated.
• Have 3 candidate cases, not 2: one for the presentation, two as spare/resit/supplementary.

2.2 Records (collect for every candidate now, not later)

• Frontal, lateral, smile, and rest-position extra-oral profile photos (de-identified — black bars over eyes).
• Intra-oral series: anterior, lateral L/R, upper and lower occlusal, retracted bilateral.
• Photos of any lab work (denture designs, indirect restorations, study models).
• Radiographs: full-mouth PAs as needed, OPG, BWs — dated and labelled.
• Study models for every candidate.
• Perio chart, CPITN, plaque score, pulp test results, percussion/palpation findings.
• CAMBRA caries risk assessment — for every patient regardless of presenting complaint.
• Lang & Tonetti periodontal risk — for every patient even if they don’t have perio.
• Dietary diary if high or extreme caries risk.
• Aesthetic analysis if aesthetic case.

2.3 Documentation discipline

• Use Word’s Headings and Styles (1., 1.1, 1.1.1) for auto-pagination.
• Section breaks per case → different headers/footers per patient.
• Consistent terminology across the entire portfolio: caries not decay, Kennedy-Applegate Classification for partially dentate, Stage/Grade for periodontitis (Papapanou et al. 2017), Samet & Jotkowitz prognosis keys (G/F/Q/C/N).
• Tooth notation FDI throughout.
• Crop, rotate, flip images so retractors and lips don’t distract from the finding.
• Final PDF under 25 MB.

2.4 Clinical workflow per case

• Chief complaint — verbatim from notes, then SOCRATES if pain.
• History: medical (with MOAs and dental implications per medication, in a table), dental, social (smoking pack-years, alcohol units/week, drugs), family, OH (frequency + method), diet.
• Risk-factor pathophysiology mermaid diagram linking history → modifying factors → disease.
• Extra-oral exam: profile, symmetry, TMJ, MoM, lymph nodes, smile aesthetics — state NAD even if there are no abnormalities.
• Intra-oral exam: soft tissues, hard tissues, tooth-by-tooth charting, CPITN, plaque score, perio chart.
• Denture exam table if relevant: age, retention, stability, occlusion, aesthetics, satisfaction.
• Investigations: dated radiograph interpretations, vitality (cold/EPT), percussion, palpation.
• CAMBRA + Lang & Tonetti tables with all rows ticked.
• Tooth-by-tooth prognosis matrix (Perio / Resto / Endo / Occ / Overall) using Samet & Jotkowitz keys, with justified ratings.
• Problem list grouped: Aesthetics / Host-related / Pathology / Morphology.
• Diagnosis = summary of problem list.
• Treatment options including no-treatment; each option with pros + cons; even unaffordable options listed.
• Management plan with sequencing.
• Before-and-after photographs at the end of each case.
• Reflection: limitations, what could be done better — be honest, “nothing to improve” reads as lazy.

2.5 Academic rigour

• Vancouver style referencing.
• Reference list after each case — duplication across cases is expected and accepted.
• EndNote for management.
• Cite journals + textbooks, not “lectures Loh 2019”.
• Know the MOA of every medication and articulate the dental implication (“ARBs cause xerostomia and lichenoid reactions” — citation required, e.g. Southerland 2016).

2.6 Mandatory across the portfolio

• At least one Endodontics case — pulp / RCT management.
• At least one Extraction of a hopeless-prognosis tooth.
• These do not need to live exclusively in the multi-disciplinary case.

3. Required portfolio composition

#	Category	Description
1	Periodontitis management	Stage/Grade diagnosis, control phase, reassessment, maintenance plan
2	Restorative — removable	Complete or partial denture; immediate, definitive, or relined
3	Restorative — fixed	Crowns, bridges, indirect onlays/inlays
4	Aesthetic management	Direct or indirect restorations, internal bleaching, ortho — anterior focus
5	Multi-disciplinary	Endo + perio + pros (or paeds/ortho cross-discipline)

4. Patient shortlist by category

The following candidates were drawn from the live Notion database (25 patients in Patients Directory; 16 with at least one of my clinical notes from 2026 to date). Each entry is sized according to clinical depth available so far. Records gaps and risks are explicit so they can be closed in the next three months.

Database health note: Most patients have Last Seen, DOB, and Status fields blank in Patients Directory. Closing these gaps for the chosen primaries should be the first admin task — they are needed in the case write-ups anyway.

---

4.1 Case 1 — Periodontitis Management

PRIMARY: Vladislav Duda (b. 1961, ID 14662)

Why he fits: Baseline perio analysis (221) and subgingival debridement (222 ×5 units) already completed by me in March 2026. A Phase-3 Perio recall is accepted in his treatment plan, giving a clean control → reassessment → maintenance arc — exactly the structure examiners want for a periodontitis case. He also has a completed Class IV anterior composite (525, 11 DMIBP) which can support the aesthetic discussion within a perio case. Schizophrenia + previously-controlled diabetes give him meaningful host factors without being so complex that the medical history runs the case.

• Presenting complaint: check active notes — likely periodontal disease with restorative needs.
• Medical flags: Endocrine disease (diabetes, now self-reported as “no more sign of diabetes” — confirm with HbA1c), Psychological disorders (depression + schizophrenia — establish current antipsychotic, MOA, xerostomia + lichenoid risk), current medications.
• Dental highlights:
  • Codes performed by me: 221 (perio analysis), 222 ×5 units (subgingival scaling), 525 (anterior class IV composite on 11), 012 (periodic exam).
  • Treatment plans: Perio recall (Phase 3, Accepted, Routine); 22 palatal restoration (Proposed); 45 DIS (Cancelled); anterior adhesive restoration on 22 (Cancelled — investigate why).
• Prognosis snapshot (to be confirmed at recall): Perio good–fair, Resto fair on previously restored anteriors, Endo good, Occlusion good. Overall fair pending control-phase reassessment.
• What’s done: Initial perio analysis + debridement + one anterior aesthetic resto. Control phase entered.
• What’s still needed before exam window:
  • 6-week reassessment perio chart — central to the case narrative.
  • Full-mouth photographic series (none on file).
  • Updated PA + BW radiographs.
  • Complete CAMBRA + Lang & Tonetti documentation.
  • Diabetes status confirmation letter from GP.
  • Investigate the cancelled 22 anterior restoration plan — was it deferred or refused?
• Risks: Schizophrenia may affect attendance reliability; mitigate by booking at consistent times and confirming day before.
• Why this case wins points: Diabetes-perio link is well-cited (Mealey & Oates 2006; Sanz et al. 2018) and gives a strong pathophysiology mermaid diagram. Smoker-style periodontitis is over-used in DMD3 portfolios; a non-smoker diabetic perio case is fresher.

Backups

• Marta Ulloa De Cruz (ID 129725) — Perio analysis (221) plus 121 + 111 + 114 sequence completed in March 2026; full periodontal debridement and 27 amalgam replacement proposed. Past pneumonia + depression as host factors. Drops behind Vladislav because reassessment hasn’t been done yet and the proposed perio debridement is still pending — case is earlier in its arc.
• Kaye Werndly (b. 1951, ID 81837) — Maintenance variant — Phase-5 Yearly recall for periodontitis in plan, 222 calculus removal already done. Bisphosphonate flag, dyslipidaemia (rosuvastatin), cancer history make her medically interesting. Best framed as periodontal maintenance rather than active treatment. Drops to backup because the active perio diagnosis is not yet documented in the database — would need historical chart from clinic records.

---

4.2 Case 2 — Restorative (Removable Dentures)

PRIMARY: Wai Wong (ID 80225)

Why she fits: Her treatment plan literally opens with “Denture Doesn’t Fit” (Phase 4, Definitive, Proposed) — that’s a textbook removable case anchor. Around the denture problem there is a coherent restorative workload: multiple anterior root-surface restorations (11, 21, 22), unsatisfactory amalgam replacements (16, 47), and a 37 mesial composite replacement. T2DM + coeliac disease + IBD + gastritis + dental anxiety form a substantive medical history with denture-relevant implications (xerostomia from diabetes; aphthous risk and steroid use in IBD; anxiety affecting tolerance to impressions and try-ins).

• Presenting complaint: “Denture doesn’t fit” (verify wording from notes).
• Medical flags: Endocrine disease (T2 Diabetes — confirm HbA1c), Gastrointestinal disease (coeliac, IBD, gastritis — relevant if any oral steroids or biologics), Psychological disorders (mild dental anxiety), past operations and hospitalisation.
• Dental highlights:
  • Codes performed by me: 114 (calculus removal) + 121 (fluoride remineralisation), plus 011 + 022 comprehensive exam and BW.
  • Treatment plans: Denture replacement (Proposed); 37 mesial composite replacement (Accepted); 16 occlusal amalgam → composite (Accepted); 11/21/22 root-surface composites (Accepted); 47 DO composite (Accepted).
• Records present: Comprehensive exam + BWs (Jan 2026), one scale & remineralisation visit (Feb 2026).
• Records still needed:
  • Existing denture assessment — age, retention, stability, occlusion, aesthetics, satisfaction. This is the core of the case.
  • Photos of existing denture (in mouth + out of mouth, fitting surfaces).
  • Study models with existing denture in situ, plus models of the dentate arch.
  • Kennedy-Applegate classification documented.
  • Edentulous and dentate ridge photographs.
  • Articulator-mounted records once the new denture sequence begins.
  • HbA1c update for diabetes — affects healing if any teeth need extraction during the denture workup.
• Risks:
  • Time-to-completion: a new denture sequence (impressions → try-in → issue → review) typically spans 4-6 visits. Start now.
  • Anxiety — book longer slots, avoid back-to-back invasive procedures.
  • Reliability check needed: verify her cancellation history before locking her in. If she has multiple cancellations, demote to backup.
• Why this case wins points: The patient has both a removable denture problem AND a substantial restorative workload on the dentate teeth — perfect for showing comprehensive treatment planning, sequencing (denture impressions only after restorations are settled), and prosthodontic-restorative interaction. Easy to integrate the Extraction mandatory here if any of her teeth (16 unsatisfactory amalgam, 47 DO) progress to hopeless.

Backups

• Sourcing gap: Of the 16 patients with my clinical notes, no other has a clearly documented denture case in the treatment plan database. Action: Ask the clinic coordinator for a partial-denture or complete-denture patient who has just started, ideally with the impression phase about to begin. Until a backup is identified, Wai Wong is a single-point-of-failure for this category — make her reliability the priority verification.

---

4.3 Case 3 — Restorative (Fixed)

PRIMARY: Eric Coles (b. 1952, ID TEMP66852)

Why he fits: His treatment plan contains 17 crown prep (Phase 4, Definitive, Accepted) and 17 DMOBP (Phase 3, Accepted) — a tooth being prepared for fixed indirect restoration after caries removal is the cleanest fixed-restoration case structure available in the database. He also has accepted multi-surface anterior adhesive restorations (21, 23, 31, 33, 41) which give the case substantive volume around the indirect work. Thyroidectomy + GORD + recent H. pylori treatment provide host factors with relevant dental implications (erosion from reflux is highly cite-able — Wilder-Smith 2004).

• Presenting complaint: verify from notes (likely combined caries + aesthetic concern).
• Medical flags: Bleeding/clotting disorders (verify status), Gastrointestinal disease (GORD, H. pylori — recent ABs, dx test scheduled), Endocrine disease (post-thyroidectomy — confirm replacement therapy), Kidney/liver disease, cancer history.
• Dental highlights:
  • Codes performed by me: 523 (anterior adhesive restoration) + 171 on 11 and 21; 061 + 071 + 072 + 073 + 114 (scale, clean, impressions, diagnostic models); 012 + 022 (periodic exam + BW).
  • Treatment plans (all in active sequence):
    • 17 DMOBP (Phase 3, Accepted) → 17 crown prep (Phase 4, Accepted) — the indirect spotlight.
    • 21 MIB anterior 3-surface (Phase 4, Accepted).
    • 23, 31, 33, 41 INC anterior adhesive (Phase 4, Accepted).
    • 11 odontoplasty (Phase 3, Accepted).
    • Diagnostic models + radiographs (Phase 3, In Progress).
    • Exo Clinic Referral (Deferred) — flag this; could become the Extraction mandatory.
• Prognosis snapshot: 17 fair-to-questionable (justifies crown decision), anteriors fair, perio good.
• Records present: Diagnostic models + radiographs in progress, scale + clean done, anterior incised restorations on 11/21 done.
• Records still needed:
  • Pre-prep photos of 17 — buccal, lingual, occlusal, contralateral comparison.
  • Pulp test results on 17 (cold + EPT) and percussion baseline.
  • Shade selection record + photography.
  • Pre-, prep-, impression-, temporary-, cement-stage photographs (this case will be presented chronologically).
  • Provisional restoration photos.
  • Articulator records if the lab needs them.
  • Aesthetic analysis for the anterior restorations even though the indirect is on a posterior tooth.
• Risks:
  • 17 may turn out endodontic when cusp is removed during prep — have a contingency plan and mention it as a treatment option.
  • The deferred Exo Clinic Referral suggests at least one tooth has been considered for extraction; clarify which tooth and whether to pull it forward as the Extraction mandatory.
• Why this case wins points: The combination of prep on a heavily restored upper second molar with parallel anterior aesthetic work shows full-mouth thinking. H. pylori/GORD + erosion is a strong rationale for material choice (consider lithium disilicate over feldspathic for chemical resilience).

Backups

• Benjamin Peel (b. 1974, ID 50733) — Has a completed onlay covering the distobuccal cusp on 37, which is a Phase 1 Acute treatment that grew out of his cracked-tooth presentation. Strong fixed-indirect case in its own right — but he is also the strongest multi-disciplinary candidate (see 4.5), so he sits as fixed backup only if Eric drops out.
• Kaye Werndly (b. 1951, ID 81837) — 22 MIBP pin-retained composite + incisal corner build-up are completed, but these are direct adhesive, not indirect — better fit for the aesthetic case (4.4).

---

4.4 Case 4 — Aesthetic Management

PRIMARY: Kaye Werndly (b. 1951, ID 81837)

Why she fits: Her completed 22 MIBP pin-retained composite + incisal corner build-up (Phase 3 + Phase 4, both Completed) is a textbook Class IV anterior aesthetic restoration on an upper lateral incisor, with a pin-retained mechanical-retention twist that is examiner-friendly. The lesion is large enough to warrant discussion of direct vs indirect (lithium disilicate veneer) options. Her medical complexity — bisphosphonate-class flag, dyslipidaemia (rosuvastatin), cancer history, social drinker — gives the case substantive host context without dominating it.

• Presenting complaint: verify wording — likely fractured upper anterior or aesthetic concern with 22.
• Medical flags: Endocrine disease (dyslipidaemia, rosuvastatin — confirm not statin myopathy), bone-modifying agent history (this is significant — get specifics: drug, dose, duration, last dose; relevant to MRONJ risk and any future extractions), cancer/radiation history, allergy to medications/foods/chemicals, smoker/former smoker, alcohol use.
• Dental highlights:
  • Codes performed by me: 524 (anterior pin-retained composite, 22 MIBP); 113 + 114 (preventive); 222 (scaling); 012 (periodic exam).
  • Treatment plans: 22 MIBP (Phase 3, Completed), 22 incisal corner (Phase 4, Completed), OPG (Proposed), Yearly perio recall (Phase 5, Maintenance).
• Records present: The aesthetic restoration is done, which means before-and-after photographs are likely already capturable if pre-op photos exist in the imaging library — this is a critical check (see records-still-needed below).
• Records still needed:
  • Pre-op photos of 22 — confirm whether they exist in the Imaging Library; if not, this is a serious gap because the pre-op state is the main visual hook of an aesthetic case. Investigate whether there are any clinic-system photos pre-Notion.
  • Shade record from the day of the restoration.
  • Aesthetic analysis: smile line, midline, incisal display at rest and full smile, golden proportion of anterior segment, gingival zenith, buccal corridor.
  • 6-month review photos with polished surface.
  • Lang & Tonetti for the periodontal context.
  • CAMBRA — likely high risk given cancer history and bisphosphonate exposure (xerostomia risk).
• Risks:
  • If pre-op photos don’t exist, this case is non-viable for aesthetics. Mitigate by checking her record on day one of next semester.
  • Bisphosphonate flag means any planned extraction needs MRONJ workup; keep aesthetic-only for the case to avoid scope creep.
• Why this case wins points: Class IV anterior with pin retention is a less-common technique than free-hand layered composite, and a defensible choice when remaining tooth structure is compromised. The decision tree of direct composite vs lithium disilicate veneer vs full-coverage crown is a standard examiner’s question — be ready with the literature (e.g. Heintze & Rousson 2012 for composite longevity; Layton & Walton 2017 for ceramic veneers).

Backups

• Vladislav Duda (b. 1961, ID 14662) — Has a completed 11 DMIBP Class IV anterior composite (525). Good aesthetic case shape, but he is the periodontitis primary (4.1); using him for both would be double-dipping. Hold as aesthetic backup only.
• Eric Coles (b. 1952, ID TEMP66852) — Anterior adhesive restorations on 21/23/31/33/41 give him a strong aesthetic narrative as well, but his fixed-restoration work on 17 (4.3) is rarer and more examinable; keep him for fixed.

---

4.5 Case 5 — Multi-disciplinary

PRIMARY: Benjamin Peel (b. 1974, ID 50733)

Why he fits: This is the strongest multi-disciplinary case in the database. In a four-month window I have already touched endodontics, periodontics, and restorative on the same patient:

• Endo: Emergency Pulp Removal Tooth 37 with code 419 (April 2026) — covers the endodontics mandatory for the entire portfolio.
• Perio: 221 (perio analysis), 114 (calculus removal), 165 (smoothing/recontouring) — control phase work.
• Restorative: Multiple Phase 3 caries lesions accepted in the plan: 14 DO, 47 DOB, 46 buccal groove.
• Indirect: A completed onlay on 37 covering the distobuccal cusp (Phase 1, Acute) — the cracked-tooth that triggered his Urgent booking priority.

His smoker + respiratory-disease + Urgent priority profile gives him host-factor depth; the cracked-tooth → emergency pulpotomy → onlay → planned definitive RCT/crown sequence gives the case clear forward momentum into the exam window.

• Presenting complaint: verify wording — likely cracked tooth / pain on biting on 37.
• Medical flags: Respiratory disease (mild lung damage, old injury, doesn’t really affect him — confirm baseline SpO2 and tolerance to long sits), past operations, allergy to medications/foods/chemicals, current medications, smoker (clarify pack-years), recreational drug use history (ask carefully).
• Dental highlights:
  • Codes performed by me: 419 (emergency pulp removal — endo trigger), 221 (perio analysis), 114 (calculus removal), 165 (smoothing/recontouring), 171, 022 (BW), 061, 011 (comprehensive exam).
  • Treatment plans: 37 onlay completed (Phase 1 Acute); General Diagnostics 221 (Proposed); 14 DO, 47 DOB, 46 buccal all Phase 3 Disease Control (Proposed).
• Prognosis snapshot: 37 currently questionable pending RCT and definitive coverage; remaining dentition fair–good.
• Records present: Pre-pulpotomy and post-onlay states should be photographable; perio chart from 221.
• Records still needed:
  • Definitive endodontic obturation on 37 — the pulpotomy is interim. Either complete the RCT or refer to endo postgrads, and document either way. Ideally the case follows obturation → core build-up → cuspal-coverage definitive restoration.
  • Pre-op PA + post-obturation PA on 37.
  • Full-mouth photograph series.
  • Smoking history quantified (pack-years).
  • CAMBRA + Lang & Tonetti complete.
  • Diet diary if caries risk is high (likely given the planned restorative load).
  • 6-week perio reassessment.
• Risks:
  • Urgent booking priority suggests pain — ensure the immediate symptoms have been controlled before the exam window so the case presents as resolved rather than active.
  • Smoker — perio prognosis modifier; document smoking cessation discussion (counselling code 142 if applicable).
  • 37 may not survive — have a backup plan (extraction + space maintenance discussion) and present it as a treatment option, not a contingency reaction.
• Why this case wins points: All three core disciplines are already documented for the same patient with completed work, not just plans. Examiners reward cases where the control phase is genuinely complete before the exam — this case will likely meet that bar by semester 2.

Backups

• Marta Ulloa De Cruz (ID 129725) — Perio + restorative + planned 38 extraction + planned 27 amalgam replacement + planned periodontal debridement. Could serve as a multi-disciplinary case if Benjamin’s 37 endodontics doesn’t progress. She also carries the Extraction mandatory if extracted in time.
• Eric Coles (b. 1952, ID TEMP66852) — Anterior aesthetic + posterior crown prep + deferred exo referral. Fixed primary; only escalate to multi-disc if Benjamin and Marta both falter.

5. Multi-disciplinary case spotlight — Benjamin Peel

The multi-disciplinary case is the highest-leverage slot in the portfolio because examiners use it to probe integration across disciplines. For Benjamin Peel:

Sequencing logic to articulate

1. Acute phase (already done): 37 emergency pulp removal + provisional onlay covering the distobuccal cusp — relieved pain, preserved tooth structure pending definitive treatment.
2. Disease control phase (in progress): scale + clean (114) + perio analysis (221) → 6-week reassessment due. Caries control: planned restorations on 14 DO, 47 DOB, 46 buccal groove. Smoking cessation counselling (142) — add this to the plan if not already there.
3. Definitive phase (planned for exam window): 37 RCT obturation → core build-up → definitive cuspal-coverage restoration (onlay or full crown — defend the choice). Posterior restorations completed.
4. Maintenance: 6-month perio recall with smoking-modified risk assessment.

Examiner questions to pre-empt

• Cracked tooth syndrome diagnostic criteria (Lubisich et al. 2010) and decision-making between root canal + crown vs extraction + replacement.
• Pulp-stripping vs vital-pulp therapy on a mature tooth with sustained spontaneous symptoms — when is pulpotomy acceptable as a definitive treatment in adults (Wolters et al. 2017; ESE position 2019)?
• Smoking and periodontal prognosis — quantify the magnitude of risk modification (Tonetti et al. 2018 staging/grading).
• Material selection for the definitive restoration on 37 — lithium disilicate vs zirconia vs gold, with reference to remaining tooth structure, occlusal load, and patient compliance.

6. Endodontics + Extractions placement

Mandatory	Lives in	Status	Action
Endodontics	Multi-disciplinary (Benjamin Peel, 37)	Pulpotomy completed; obturation pending	Schedule RCT obturation in semester 2
Extraction (hopeless prognosis)	TBD — currently unplaced	Not yet completed	See options below

Extraction options (in order of preference):

1. Marta Ulloa De Cruz — 38 extraction (proposed) — clean candidate; extract in semester 2 and incorporate as a sub-element of her case (currently a backup multi-disc), or escalate her to a primary slot.
2. Eric Coles — Exo Clinic Referral (deferred) — investigate which tooth was referred; if the prognosis is clearly hopeless, pull this forward.
3. Wai Wong — incorporate into the denture case — if any of her dentate teeth (e.g. 37 with unsatisfactory restoration, 16 unsatisfactory amalgam) progress to hopeless before exam time, the extraction sits naturally inside the removable case.
4. Derek Dowding — 28 extraction (accepted) — he currently sits outside the 5 primary cases (1 of my notes), but if the extraction is performed and a control-phase scaling sequence is added, he could replace a weaker slot.

Recommendation: Confirm in week 1 of semester 2 which extraction will be performed and assigned to which case. Do not leave this floating.

7. Three-month action list

Records collection backlog (do this regardless of which patients are picked)

• Standardised photographic series for each of the 5 primaries (pre-treatment + ongoing).
• Study models for each of the 5 primaries.
• Update DOB, Last Seen, and Status in Patients Directory for each primary.
• Lang & Tonetti + CAMBRA worksheets for each of the 5 primaries.
• Pulp tests (cold + EPT) baseline for any tooth that may need endo or indirect work.

Per-patient priority appointments

Patient	Next critical appointment	Rationale
Vladislav Duda	6-week perio reassessment + photos	Closes the control phase narrative
Wai Wong	Existing-denture assessment + first impressions	Starts the longest critical path in the portfolio
Eric Coles	17 prep + provisional + impression	Centrepiece of fixed case
Kaye Werndly	Photographs of 22 region first — confirm whether pre-op exists; aesthetic analysis	If no pre-op photo, demote her and promote Vladislav for aesthetic
Benjamin Peel	37 RCT obturation + 6-week perio reassessment	Closes both endo and perio narratives
Marta Ulloa De Cruz (backup)	38 extraction + perio debridement	Locks in the Extraction mandatory

Reliability verification (week 1 of semester 2)

• Pull cancellation history for each of the 5 primaries from the appointments database.
• If any patient has > 25% cancellation rate, swap to the backup.

8. Open data gaps to close

These were surfaced when generating this shortlist from the Notion database. Closing them strengthens every case write-up and is necessary for several primaries:

1. DOB missing for Wai Wong, Vladislav (have it: 1961-06-22), Marta Ulloa, Kaye (have it: 1951-09-27 — Kaye had it; Wai/Marta need it).
2. Last Seen is null across all patients — populate from the Clinical Notes most-recent date.
3. Patient Status is inconsistently set (some Active, most blank). Set every primary and backup to Active.
4. Perio Status is blank for Vladislav (should be Periodontitis if he meets staging criteria) and Kaye (should be Maintenance). This affects how the Logbook auto-populate categorises perio entries.
5. Pre-op imaging for Kaye Werndly’s tooth 22 — verify before locking her in as aesthetic primary.
6. Whether OS-clinic referral for Eric Coles is still open — determines whether to use him for the extraction mandatory.

9. References (placeholder — Vancouver, per case)

Per the formatting guide, each case has its own reference list at the end of that case section. Build these in EndNote as you go. Anchor citations you will likely need across multiple cases:

• Featherstone JDB et al. CAMBRA caries risk assessment. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2021.
• Lang NP, Tonetti MS. Periodontal risk assessment for patients in supportive periodontal therapy. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2003;1(1):7-16.
• Papapanou PN et al. Periodontitis: Consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):S173-S182.
• Samet N, Jotkowitz A. Classification and prognosis evaluation of individual teeth — a comprehensive approach. Quintessence Int. 2009;40(5):377-87.
• Tonetti MS, Greenwell H, Kornman KS. Staging and grading of periodontitis. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):S159-S172.
• Sanz M et al. Scientific evidence on the links between periodontal diseases and diabetes: Consensus report from the joint workshop EFP/IDF. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(2):138-149.
• Wilder-Smith CH et al. Dental erosion in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19(10):1093-1099.
• Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations — a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14(5):407-431.
• Lubisich EB, Hilton TJ, Ferracane J, Northwest Practice-based REsearch Collaborative in Evidence-based DENTistry. Cracked teeth: a review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2010;22(3):158-167.
• Wolters WJ et al. Minimally invasive endodontics: a new diagnostic system for assessing pulpitis and subsequent treatment needs. Int Endod J. 2017;50(9):825-829.

---

Maintenance: This document is a planning artifact, not the portfolio itself. Update the patient shortlist + action list at the end of each clinical week. When a primary’s reliability or treatment progression breaks down, promote the named backup and rewrite that case section.