The state of Meridian Dental Partners, end of Q2 2026.
Practice valuation, core economics, pillar health, and the actions that matter this quarter — all on one screen. Drill into any pillar from the left rail, or open the full Connected Practice Report.
Meridian Dental Partners valuation, May 2026
Dual-method triangulated range across EBITDA-multiple and forward-revenue-multiple. Mid-point $28.4M reflects current run-rate adjusted for 90-day recoverable revenue execution.
Read the full Connected Practice Report →
Five cross-pillar stories. $1.05M of recoverable revenue stacked by source. 90-day plan with named action cards. The full investor-grade narrative.
Core economics · T90
Pillar health · click any pillar to drill in
3-site league table · core multispecialty KPIs
| Site | Health | Production T90 | Chair util | Visits T90 | High-value | Avg $/visit | Case accept | Prod/chair-hr | Recare | Recoverable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanoFlagship |
88 | $1.74M | 91% | 3,400 | 64 | $512 | 71% | $610 | 86% | $186K |
FriscoGrowth |
71 | $1.12M | 78% | 2,300 | 38 | $487 | 56% | $487 | 71% | $412K |
SouthlakeUrgent |
48 | $0.49M | 51% | 950 | 12 | $516 | 41% | $284 | 38% | $452K |
| Group | 71 | $3.35M | 75% | 6,650 | 114 | $504 | 63% | $487 | 71% | $1.05M |
Key trends · trailing 12 months
Top 5 actions · ranked by impact
Recoverable revenue · summary
Opportunity Hub AI-Ranked
Unbilled restorations
Stalled case plans >30d
Missed inbound callbacks
Lapsed maintenance recall
CBCT done · no plan presented
Plan accepted · no deposit
Frisco full-arch leak
Lab remake watch (90d)
Stage payments overdue
High-LTV at-risk patients
Finance package declined
No-show repeat offenders
Top 10 opportunities ranked by recoverable value AI-Ranked
| # | Patient | Site | Provider | Opportunity | Brand / Type | Last touch | Value | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Patient-3284 Full-arch upper · restored Jun 2024 |
Southlake |
Reyes | Lapsed maintenance | Straumann · Full-arch | Dec 2024 | $3,800 | 17mo lapsed |
| 2 | Patient-2917 Multi-tooth lower · restored Sep 2024 |
Southlake |
Reyes | Lapsed maintenance | Nobel · Multi | Mar 2025 | $2,400 | 14mo lapsed |
| 3 | Patient-4012 All-on-4 case plan presented Mar 2026 |
Frisco |
Lin | Stalled plan 47d | Straumann · Full-arch | Mar 28 | $28,400 | Awaiting decision |
| 4 | Patient-3744 Restoration delivered Apr 2026 · uninvoiced |
Frisco |
Okafor | Unbilled restoration | Astra · Single | Apr 14 | $3,200 | No invoice |
| 5 | Patient-2588 CBCT completed Feb 2026 · no plan |
Frisco |
Lin | CBCT · no plan | — | Feb 12 | $14,800 | 98d aged |
| 6 | Patient-1842 Full-arch lower · Patterson finance declined |
Plano |
Whitfield | Finance declined | Straumann · Full-arch | Apr 22 | $26,800 | Re-submit |
| 7 | Patient-4288 Full-arch lower · restored Oct 2024 |
Southlake |
Reyes | Lapsed maintenance | Nobel · Full-arch | Feb 2025 | $3,600 | 15mo lapsed |
| 8 | Patient-3198 Bridge on 4 implants · restored May 2024 |
Southlake |
Reyes | Lapsed · high LTV | Straumann · Multi | Nov 2024 | $2,900 | 17mo · risk |
| 9 | Patient-3552 Multi-tooth case · 2 reminders sent |
Frisco |
Okafor | Stalled plan 34d | Astra · Multi | Apr 12 | $8,400 | Cold |
| 10 | Patient-4101 Single upper anterior · never returned post-restoration |
Southlake |
Reyes | Lapsed maintenance | Straumann · Single | Nov 2024 | $1,800 | 18mo · risk |
Patient lifecycle partition · 1,847 post-restoration patients
Operations — where the capacity actually goes
A busy multispecialty practice lives or dies on what happens between 8am and 6pm in front of the chair. This pillar answers one question: where is our chair capacity wasted, and why?
Where is our chair capacity wasted, and why?
Operatory utilization · group · hour × day (T90 avg)
The same waste · three different stories
Out of room
CEILING REACHEDPlano is operating at the physical ceiling of 6 chairs and 2 providers. Only 2.2 hrs/wk are true recovery opportunity — the rest is protected planning, team time, and CBCT review. The capacity lever here is case-mix shift (push more high-value cases), not more chair hours.
Throttled
CONVERSION CAPACITYFrisco has the demand (386 leads T90, biggest in group) but is choking on conversion capacity. Surgeons sit idle Tue 2–4pm and Thu 11–1pm — precisely when the single coordinator is in back-to-back consults. The upstream coordinator bleed IS the schedule problem.
Demand-starved
UPSTREAM LIMITSouthlake has the schedule capacity but not enough lead supply to fill it. Even at the group's avg 75% conversion, current lead volume (248 T90) caps Southlake at ~750 chair hrs/qtr — leaving 38.4 hrs/wk structurally unfillable. Lead pipeline is the lever, not schedule management.
Why the capacity is wasted — four diagnostic lanes
Phone leak — calls that should have become chair hours
496 inbound calls T90 went to voicemail and were never returned. At the group's current consult-to-treatment conversion of 32%, those calls would have filled approximately 142 hrs of operatory time.
Cancellation cluster — slots not refilled in time
368 cancellations T90, of which 198 hrs of slots couldn't be refilled within 5 working days. Cost concerns ($42K cancelled value at 28% rebook) and 'no reason given' ($37K at 22% rebook) dominate the un-recovered tail.
Coordinator hand-off failure — accepted plans that never reach the chair
204 case plans accepted in principle but never followed up to deposit + booked treatment date. Frisco owns 128 of the 204 — the bleed sits in the absent relay between "plan signed" and "date in schedule".
Lead supply mismatch — Southlake structural ceiling
Southlake has 1,560 available chair hrs/qtr but only 248 leads/qtr to feed them. Even at perfect downstream conversion, current lead supply caps Southlake at ~750 chair hrs — leaving 810 hrs structurally unfillable. The constraint is marketing supply, not schedule.
Capacity recovery worklist — ranked by hours returned
| # | Action | Lane | Site | Owner | Hrs returned | $ impact | Time-to-recover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Run outbound campaign on 271 Southlake missed callbacks Dialler-assisted · scripted · 2 hygienists × 4 days |
Phone | Southlake |
Reception lead | 82 | $82K | 2 weeks |
| 2 | Hire 2nd coordinator at Frisco Closes the consult-throttle bleed · $42K/yr loaded |
Coord | Frisco |
Frisco PM | 182 | $186K | 21 days hire · 60 days fill |
| 3 | Block Tue 2–4pm & Thu 11–1pm at Frisco as call-protected Interim until 2nd coord starts · existing coord on phone only |
Phone | Frisco |
Coordinator | 26 | $28K | Week 1 |
| 4 | Re-pitch Southlake Google + Meta with lower-CPL targets CPL target $118 → $82 · +60% lead supply |
Lead supply | Southlake |
Marketing agency | 286 | $104K | 30 days to ramp |
| 5 | Build CareStack waitlist module + tag 80 patients Auto-SMS on cancellation · refill within 24h |
Schedule | Frisco Southlake |
Group PM | 142 | $68K | 14 days config |
| 6 | Run stalled-plan revival on 128 Frisco accepted plans Scripted day-7/14/30 cascade · expected 35% conv |
Coord | Frisco |
New coordinator | 62 | $72K | Weeks 5–10 |
| 7 | Activate referring-dentist program at Southlake 3 perio + 4 GP relationships · referral pack + lunch |
Lead supply | Southlake |
Reyes | 42 | $38K | 60 days |
| 8 | Push Plano high-value case mix from 13% → 18% Existing chair time · case-mix shift only · same surgeons |
Mix shift | Plano |
Whitfield | — | $82K | 90 days |
| Total recoverable capacity · 90 days | +808 hrs | +$427K | Phased Wk 1–12 | ||||
Frisco call answer rate · hour × day heatmap
Two worst cells (Tue 2–4pm at 42%, Thu 11–1pm at 51%) are coordinator-overlap slots. 68 of 130 missed calls T90 sit in these two windows.
Call volume by site
Call disposition mix
Top missed callbacks — Southlake-dominant AI-Ranked
| # | Patient / Number | Site | Hour | Intent | Voicemail | Est. value | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | +1 (469) 555-••42 Returning Meridian enquiry · 2nd call | Southlake | Thu 12:14 | Full-arch consult | Yes · 0:42 | $24,000 | No callback |
| 2 | +1 (469) 555-••18 New enquiry · Google Ads | Southlake | Tue 14:48 | Multi-tooth | Yes · 0:28 | $8,400 | No callback |
| 3 | +1 (469) 555-••73 Returning patient · maintenance Q | Southlake | Mon 13:22 | Maintenance | No | $480 | Callback 36hrs late |
| 4 | +1 (469) 555-••55 New enquiry · referral | Frisco | Thu 11:34 | All-on-4 enquiry | Yes · 1:08 | $28,400 | No callback |
| 5 | +1 (469) 555-••91 Existing post-resto patient | Southlake | Wed 16:10 | Concern raised | Yes · 0:55 | $3,200 | No callback · clinical risk |
Surgical utilization heatmap · group · hour × day
Mid-day dip and Friday late-afternoon are protected for restorations and team admin. Southlake is the outlier site contributing most of the Friday-afternoon weakness.
Per-surgeon utilization
Idle chair hours · 12-month trend
Appointment status mix
No-show rate trend
Top cancellation reasons
| Reason | Count | % of cancels | Re-book rate | Recovered value | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient unwell | 94 | 26% | 78% | $42,800 | Standard |
| Cost / finance concern | 68 | 18% | 28% | $18,200 | Re-present finance |
| Work conflict | 52 | 14% | 52% | $26,400 | Offer eve/weekend slots |
| Anxiety / fear | 38 | 10% | 48% | $14,800 | Pre-op call protocol |
| No reason given | 62 | 17% | 22% | $8,400 | Deposit at next book |
| Bereavement / family | 18 | 5% | 88% | $9,800 | Standard |
| Found alternate provider | 14 | 4% | 8% | $1,200 | Win-back call |
| Other | 22 | 6% | 40% | $4,800 | — |
| Total | 368 | 100% | 48% | $126,400 | $140K not recovered |
Recare & hygiene recall funnel · T90 group
Recall opportunity queues
Lapsed 9–12mo
Lapsed 12–18mo
Lapsed 18mo+
Peri-implantitis surveillance
Finance — what each case actually earns after costs
A multispecialty practice's P&L is built case by case. This pillar answers one question: what's the true unit economics of each implant case, and where does margin leak before it hits the bank?
What does a high-value case earn — and where does the margin leak before the bank?
The single most lucrative product the practice sells.
Average full-arch case · $27,300 → $15,307 in 5 steps
But the average hides where margin really varies · per-case anatomy
3 case types · T90 cases placed · avg margin per case · cost stack as proportion of revenue
The same case · three different P&Ls
Margin compound
BEST-IN-CLASSPlano compounds three advantages: best surgeon hour ($610/hr), cheapest lab ($4,020/case, 1.2% remake), shortest surgery (8.2 hrs/full-arch). Net contribution T90: $608K. The lever is volume × full-arch share.
Lab + time leak
SUPPLIER + PROTOCOLFrisco bleeds $3,831 of margin per full-arch case: 42 min longer surgery time, $800 higher lab cost (Northstar 18.2% of rev), 4.2% remake rate vs Plano's 1.2%. Volume is healthy, unit economics are not.
Sub-scale economics
STRUCTURAL DRAGSouthlake isn't unprofitable per case — it's unprofitable per quarter. Fixed costs ($417K T90) divided by sub-scale revenue ($490K) leaves $4K net contribution loss. The unit economics on a single-tooth case ($1,240 margin) are sound; the volume is the problem.
Where margin leaks before it hits the bank — four diagnostic lanes
Unbilled completed restorations — cash literally on the floor
38 cases delivered Mar–Apr with final invoice never raised. Clinical notes show procedure complete; finance ledger has no matching invoice. Frisco owns 19, Southlake 11, Plano 8. Seven days of receptionist work to recover.
Frisco lab waste — 4.2% remake rate vs 1.2% benchmark
Northstar Lab remake rate is 3.5× Plano's DentalCraft. $28K of remake cost T90. Two alternate suppliers have quoted $680/case lower with sub-2% remake. 4-week reversible trial on next 8 full-arch cases at Frisco.
Finance package declines — 62 accepted plans where finance fell through
Patient said yes, finance company said no. 62 cases T90 sit in this gap. Patterson CarePay (64% approval, 4.4% default) is the biggest contributor. Re-submit via CareCredit or Sunbit in 28 of these cases recovers approximately 70% based on T12 data.
Stage payments overdue — multi-stage cases mid-flight
Multi-stage cases (full-arch · finance-funded over 12–48 mo) sometimes drop a stage payment. 27 stages overdue >14 days. $27K outstanding. Reception chase + auto-DD retry recovers ~95%.
Margin recovery worklist — ranked by $ impact
| # | Action | Leak | Site | Owner | $ recovery | % margin | Time-to-cash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Run unbilled restoration billing flow on 38 cases Clinical notes → invoice generation → email send · 7 days |
Unbilled | All 3 sites | Reception leads | $127K | 100% | 1 week |
| 2 | Switch Frisco lab supplier (4-week trial on 8 cases) Northstar → Supplier B · $680/case lower · target <2% remake |
Lab waste | Frisco |
Group clinical lead | $58K/yr | 85% | 4 weeks trial |
| 3 | Re-submit 28 Patterson-declined finance applications to CareCredit/Sunbit 2nd-submit historical recovery rate 71% |
Finance | All 3 sites | Coordinators | $64K | 56% | 14 days |
| 4 | Push Plano high-value case mix from 13% → 18% Same chair time · case-mix shift only · existing surgeons |
Mix shift | Plano |
Whitfield | $82K | 56% | 90 days |
| 5 | Run stage-payment chase on 27 overdue stages Auto-DD retry + reception phone call · ~95% recovery |
Collections | All 3 sites | Practice manager | $26K | 100% | 5 days |
| 6 | Tighten in-house finance plan screening (4.4% default) Credit check + min deposit · forward-looking · avoid future $21K/yr default |
Policy | All 3 sites | Finance lead | $21K/yr | — | Policy change · this month |
| Total recoverable margin · 90 days (mix of one-off cash + annualised) | $346K | — | Phased Wk 1–12 | ||||
What does each specialty generate — top-line vs gross margin?
Specialty × economics · T90 · all 3 sites
| Specialty | Cases T90 | Avg case $ | Top-line $ | Direct cost $ | Gross margin $ | Margin % | % of total margin | $ / chair-hr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impl/OSImplants & Oral Surgery | 210 | $4,310 | $905K | $398K | $507K | 56% | 30% | $642 |
| OrthoOrthodontics (incl. aligners) | 88 | $6,480 | $570K | $274K | $296K | 52% | 18% | $410 |
| ProsthoProsthodontics (crown & bridge, dentures) | 430 | $1,210 | $520K | $265K | $255K | 49% | 15% | $452 |
| PerioPeriodontics (SRP, perio surgery) | 540 | $778 | $420K | $223K | $197K | 47% | 12% | $360 |
| EndoEndodontics | 270 | $1,241 | $335K | $167K | $168K | 50% | 10% | $470 |
| RestoRestorative (fillings, onlays) | 1,290 | $233 | $300K | $168K | $132K | 44% | 8% | $300 |
| HygHygiene & Preventive (recare, exams, x-rays) | 3,100 | $65 | $200K | $124K | $76K | 38% | 4% | $210 |
| CosmCosmetic (veneers, whitening) | 95 | $1,053 | $100K | $42K | $58K | 58% | 3% | $520 |
| Group total (all specialties) | 6,650 visits | $504 | $3.35M | $1.66M | $1.69M | 50.4% | 100% | $470 |
THE INDICATION CONCENTRATION STORY
Full-arch (18 cases) + All-on-X (8 cases) = 8.3% of total volume but 35% of total gross margin. Single-tooth at 71% of cases generates 31% of margin — high-volume but margin-thin. Zygomatic (49% margin) and Adjunct (49% margin) are slower because of higher direct cost burden (Zygomatic implant fixtures alone are $6,400/case). The lever for the practice is case-mix shift toward full-arch + All-on-X: each 1% shift from single → full-arch is worth ~$24K/qtr of incremental gross margin.
Cost anatomy · Implants & Oral Surgery case types · % of revenue
Specialty × site · case volume distribution
Plano indexes premium — leads on implants, oral surgery, orthodontics and high-value prosthodontics. Southlake is overwhelmingly general/restorative · minimal implant, ortho or endo depth. The specialty-mix gap IS the per-chair-hour margin gap. Hygiene & preventive and cosmetic volumes are reported separately in the recare and revenue views.
Revenue by case type · T12 trend
Per-provider revenue contribution
Revenue per chair-hour · per provider per site
| Provider | Site | Chair hrs T90 | Revenue | $/hr | vs benchmark | High-value share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. James Whitfield | Plano | 1,124 | $940K | $836 | +36% | 38% |
| Dr. Priya Mehta | Plano | 1,058 | $800K | $756 | +23% | 12% |
| Dr. Marcus Lin | Frisco | 1,012 | $610K | $603 | −2% | 22% |
| Dr. Sarah Okafor | Frisco | 894 | $510K | $570 | −7% | 8% |
| Dr. David Reyes | Southlake | 832 | $280K | $337 | −45% | 2% |
| Locum (Southlake) | Southlake | 386 | $210K | $544 | −12% | 0% |
| Group | 5.5 FTE | 5,306 | $3.35M | $631 | — | 9% |
AR aging buckets
Payment method mix
Patient financing take-up & lender performance
| Provider | Applications | Approval rate | Avg amount | Avg term | Default T12 | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CareCredit | 186 | 82% | $8,400 | 24 mo | 1.2% | Primary |
| Sunbit | 114 | 78% | $12,200 | 36 mo | 2.1% | Use for $10K+ |
| Patterson CarePay | 42 | 64% | $18,400 | 48 mo | 2.8% | Use for $15K+ cases |
| Direct (in-house plan) | 28 | 100% | $4,200 | 12 mo | 4.4% | Tighter screening |
Collections worklists
AR >90 days
AR 61–90 days
AR 31–60 days
Direct-debit failures
Full-arch case anatomy · group average
| Component | $ | Source | % of revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total case revenue | $27,300 | — | 100% |
| Implant fixtures (4×) | ($1,840) | Materials | 6.7% |
| Abutments + components | ($640) | Materials | 2.3% |
| Provisional lab fee | ($780) | Lab | 2.9% |
| Definitive zirconia bridge lab | ($3,420) | Lab | 12.5% |
| Surgeon time (8.5 hrs loaded) | ($2,565) | Payroll | 9.4% |
| Surgical nurse + assistant | ($640) | Payroll | 2.3% |
| Room + sterilisation overhead | ($980) | Overhead | 3.6% |
| Coordinator + admin | ($340) | Payroll | 1.2% |
| Finance company fee (2.4% on $18K) | ($432) | Finance | 1.6% |
| Marketing attribution | ($280) | Growth | 1.0% |
| Lab remake allowance (1.8%) | ($76) | Provision | 0.3% |
| Total cost | ($11,993) | — | 43.9% |
| Net margin per case | $15,307 | — | 56.1% |
Margin per case type · per site
Lab cost % revenue by supplier
Growth — the lead-to-bank journey
Every prospective patient walks a journey from first enquiry to treatment. This pillar answers one question: for every $1 of marketing, what's the lead-to-bank journey — and where does it leak?
For every $1 of marketing, what's the lead-to-bank journey — and where does it leak?
$94.6K marketing spend → $3.50M attributed revenue T90. Strong by industry standards (12–18× is benchmark). But the funnel below says we should be at 52× — the gap is one specific drop-off.
The 10-step funnel · group T90 · $ leaked at each stage (avg case $6,420)
THE BIGGEST SINGLE LEAK · STAGE 6 → 7
From 681 case plans presented to 426 plans accepted — the practice loses 255 patients in a single step. That's 14% of every inbound lead. At the group's avg case value of $6,420, this represents $1.64M of treatment value that walked out of the consult room and never came back. Plano converts this step at 71%. Southlake at 41%. Closing the 30-point gap at Southlake alone is worth $185K–$240K. The coordinator hand-off (Lane 3 below) is the dominant cause.
The same funnel · three different stories
Compound channels
BENCHMARKPlano compounds three advantages: lowest CPL ($68 vs $118 Southlake), highest referral share (38% — patients refer patients), and best conversion at every step. Marketing ROI: 49×. The funnel barely leaks below stage 5.
Demand without capture
MID-FUNNEL LEAKFrisco has the biggest top-of-funnel (386 leads T90 · largest in group) and the worst mid-funnel leak. Of 258 plans presented, only 144 accepted; 62 still pending past 30 days. The Operations coordinator gap IS the Growth conversion gap.
Single-channel risk
SUPPLY + CONVERSIONSouthlake depends on paid digital for 71% of leads at 1.7× the group's CPL. No active referring-dentist base (only 1 GP). When the ad budget pauses, the lead pipeline collapses. Single-channel concentration risk.
Where every $1 of marketing actually goes T90 · spend → revenue per channel
Why the funnel leaks where it does — four diagnostic lanes
The "yes but…" leak — 255 plans presented, never accepted
The biggest single drop-off in the funnel: $1.64M of treatment value walked out of the consult room. Avg patient who declined: cost concerns (47%), spouse to decide (18%), wants 2nd opinion (12%). 35% of these are recoverable with scripted day-7/14/30 follow-up.
Coordinator gap — accepted plans that never become a deposit
Frisco owns 128 of the 204 stalled plans. The relay between "patient said yes" and "deposit booked" is missing because the single coordinator is in back-to-back consults. This is the same root cause as the Operations capacity leak — visible from a different angle.
Cold lead drift — 296 leads not contacted within 14 days
Leads that arrive but never get a real conversation. 170 at Frisco, 98 at Southlake, 28 at Plano. Median age of cold leads: 22 days. Conversion rate drops 4× after day 7 — most of these are now effectively lost without an outbound re-touch sequence.
Referring-dentist dormancy — 86× ROI channel under-invested
Patient and consultant referrals deliver 86× and 357× ROI respectively. The group has 9 active referring-dentists — all in Plano. Zero active perio or GP referrers at Southlake. $8.4K in referral incentives across all sites — Plano spends 3× more than Southlake on this highest-ROI channel.
Funnel recovery worklist — ranked by stage × $ impact
| # | Action | Stage | Site | Owner | $ recovery | Cases lifted | Time-to-cash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Run scripted day-7/14/30 follow-up on 204 stalled plans Frisco 128, Southlake 50, Plano 26 · historical 35% recovery |
Plan accept | All 3 | Coord team | $458K | 71 | 30 days |
| 2 | Activate Southlake referring-dentist program 3 perio + 4 GP · referral pack + lunch · zero ad spend |
Referral | Southlake |
Reyes | $38K | 12 | 60 days |
| 3 | Cold lead re-touch sequence on 296 unhandled leads SMS + email + call cascade · expected 11pp lift |
Lead | All 3 | Coord team | $82K | 14 | 21 days |
| 4 | Re-pitch Southlake Google + Meta with lower-CPL targets CPL $118 → $82 · +60% lead supply at same spend |
Lead | Southlake |
Marketing agency | $104K | 22 | 30 days to ramp |
| 5 | Roll out Plano same-day-conversion protocol to Frisco + Southlake Clinical → CBCT review → plan → deposit → date in one visit |
Plan accept | Frisco Southlake |
Group clinical lead | $220K/yr | 34/yr | Week 9 training |
| 6 | Switch Plano top 50 patients to active referral programme $250 reward / completed referral · scales 357× channel |
Referral | Plano |
Reception lead | $42K | 8 | 90 days |
| Total recoverable revenue · 90 days | $612K + $262K/yr run-rate | 127 | Phased Wk 1–12 | ||||
Lead pipeline funnel · group T90
Stalled case-plan aging
| Days aged | Plano | Frisco | Southlake | Group | $ value | Est. recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–7 days | 22 | 38 | 14 | 74 | $472K | 68% |
| 8–14 days | 14 | 42 | 12 | 68 | $412K | 42% |
| 15–30 days | 8 | 58 | 18 | 84 | $544K | 28% |
| 31–60 days | 4 | 68 | 26 | 98 | $636K | 14% |
| 61–90 days | 2 | 28 | 14 | 44 | $284K | 6% |
| 90+ days | 2 | 8 | 12 | 22 | $142K | 2% |
| Total | 52 | 242 | 96 | 390 | $2.49M | ~$640K recoverable |
Acceptance rate by treatment value
Decline reasons
Acceptance funnel by site
| Site | Plans presented | Same-day accept | Delayed accept | Declined | Still pending | Acceptance % | Avg value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plano | 312 | 181 | 41 | 48 | 42 | 71% | $14,400 |
Frisco | 258 | 62 | 82 | 52 | 62 | 56% | $12,180 |
Southlake | 111 | 14 | 31 | 42 | 24 | 41% | $9,400 |
| Group | 681 | 257 | 154 | 142 | 128 | 63% | $12,820 |
Channel performance · T90
| Channel | Spend | Leads | CPL | Consults | Signed cases | Revenue attrib. | ROI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Ads | $42,800 | 612 | $70 | 372 | 148 | $894K | 20.9x |
| Meta (Facebook + Instagram) | $28,400 | 422 | $67 | 228 | 82 | $456K | 16.1x |
| Patient referrals | $3,200 | 388 | $8 | 288 | 156 | $1,142K | 357x |
| Referring dentist / GP | $8,400 | 168 | $50 | 142 | 88 | $724K | 86x |
| Organic web / SEO | $9,600 | 158 | $61 | 94 | 42 | $186K | 19.4x |
| Walk-in / phone direct | $2,200 | 99 | $22 | 58 | 24 | $94K | 42.7x |
| Total | $94,600 | 1,847 | $51 | 1,082 | 540 | $3.50M | 36.9x |
CAC by channel · 12-month trend
Top referring dentists
Clinical — who's producing what outcomes
In a multispecialty group, "good clinical work" is not a feeling — it's a measurable matrix per provider. This pillar answers one question: which provider at which site is producing the right case mix with the right outcomes — and which lab is hurting us?
Which provider at which site is producing the right case mix with the right outcomes?
6,650 procedures · 0.9% complication rate · 96% blended clinical success.
Group averages look benchmark-grade. But the average hides who is producing what.
Surgeon × Outcome matrix · T90 · cell color = performance vs group
Lab supplier scorecard — the $104K margin question
★ CLINICAL HEADLINENet Frisco impact if switched: 4-week trial on next 8 full-arch cases at Supplier B ($680/case lower, sub-2% remake) → projected $58K/yr direct cost saving + $46K/yr quality margin (fewer remakes, faster TAT, fewer patient re-visits). Trial is fully reversible. Cross-reference: Finance Lane 2.
Three sites · three clinical profiles
Clinical reference
BEST-IN-CLASSPlano is the group's clinical reference site: highest complexity (38% full-arch from Whitfield), lowest remake (1.2%), highest guided-surgery rate (88% avg), lowest peri-implantitis (0.4%). The clinical playbook here is what the other two sites should be benchmarked against.
Lab + protocol drag
FIXABLE LEAKSFrisco's clinical outcomes are mostly sound (1.0% complications, 98.5% survival). The drags are process-level not surgeon-level: lab remake rate, 38-min longer surgery per full-arch (Lin), 22% lower guided-surgery on Okafor. All three are operationally fixable inside 90 days.
Specialty depth gap
SPECIALTY BUILD-OUTReyes is competent on general restorative work (83% of his volume) but the site has minimal implant, ortho or endo depth and the lowest specialty case mix in the group. Combined with the highest recare-lapse rate, this is a specialty build-out + recall discipline gap, not a clinical-malpractice issue.
Clinical risk & quality lanes
Frisco lab remake — 14 remakes T90, $42K direct waste
Northstar Lab remake rate is 4.2% vs Plano DentalCraft's 1.2%. Every remake = 4 extra clinical hours + $580 material + delayed patient restoration. Two alternates quoted $680/case lower with sub-2% remake. Reversible 4-week trial.
Restorations stalled mid-pipeline — 18 cases past 120-day TAT
18 patients have completed surgical phase but no restoration delivered after >120 days post-surgery. Southlake owns 8, Frisco 7, Plano 3. Each one is clinical risk (peri-implantitis) + financial risk (unbilled second stage).
Peri-implantitis surveillance — 42 active risk cases (Southlake-weighted)
42 patients show early peri-implantitis indicators (bleeding on probing > 3mm pocket). 27 are at Southlake — direct consequence of 38% recare compliance vs Plano's 86%. Without 14-day clinical review, ~20% will progress to bone loss requiring intervention (avg cost $1,840 to manage).
Reyes complication review — 1.9% vs group 0.9%
Reyes's complication rate is 2× the group average on a relatively narrow case mix (93% single-tooth). Guided-surgery rate is 62% vs group 78%. Pattern suggests technique gap on guided-surgery workflow, not skill deficit — addressable with 2 days of pair-up.
Clinical quality & protocol worklist — ranked by risk × value
| # | Action | Lane | Site / Provider | Owner | Clinical impact | $ impact | Time-to-effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4-week trial: switch Frisco from Northstar to Supplier B Reversible · 8 full-arch cases · measure remake + TAT + aesthetic outcome |
Lab | Frisco |
Group clinical lead | −2.5pp remake | $104K/yr | Decision wk 8 |
| 2 | Restoration delivery push on 18 stalled cases Clinical schedule 8 Southlake + 7 Frisco + 3 Plano · 21-day window |
Pipeline | All 3 sites | Site PMs | −18 peri-implantitis risk-pts | $148K cash | 21 days |
| 3 | 14-day clinical review on 42 peri-implantitis surveillance patients 27 at Southlake · BoP + radiograph · stage interventions |
Surveillance | All 3 sites | Hygienist lead | ~8 cases avoided | $77K/yr | 14 days |
| 4 | Whitfield mentors Lin: 6-week full-arch protocol pair-up Reduce Frisco full-arch surgery time 8.9hrs → 8.3hrs · case-by-case observation |
Protocol | Lin |
Whitfield | −42min/case | $46K/yr | 6 weeks |
| 5 | Reyes guided-surgery workflow upgrade 2-day pair-up with Whitfield · target lift guided % 62 → 80 |
Technique | Reyes |
Whitfield | ~3 complications/yr avoided | $18K/yr | 30 days |
| 6 | Document Plano pre-op planning protocol as group SOP 2-day workshop · roll out to Frisco + Southlake · quarterly re-cert |
Protocol | Group | Clinical lead | Group quality lift | Long-term moat | 60 days |
| Total clinical impact · 90 days | ~11 complications avoided | $249K + $148K cash | Phased Wk 1–12 | ||||
Implants & Oral Surgery · case mix by provider
| Provider | Site | Total implants | Single | Multi | Full-arch | Bone graft | Sinus lift | Guided % | Avg surgery time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whitfield | Plano | 88 | 42 | 28 | 18 | 22 | 14 | 92% | 2h 14m |
| Mehta | Plano | 54 | 38 | 16 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 84% | 1h 28m |
| Lin | Frisco | 72 | 44 | 19 | 9 | 16 | 10 | 82% | 1h 52m |
| Okafor | Frisco | 46 | 36 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 4 | 70% | 1h 36m |
| Reyes | Southlake | 42 | 38 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 62% | 1h 22m |
| Locum | Southlake | 11 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 54% | 1h 48m |
| Group | 5.5 FTE | 313 | 209 | 77 | 28 | 62 | 34 | 78% | 1h 44m |
Implant fixture mix by brand
Procedure volume by specialty
Lab supplier scorecard
| Supplier | Primary site | Cases T90 | Avg cost | Remake % | Avg TAT | Aesthetic re-do % | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DentalCraft Premium | Plano | 142 | $580 | 1.2% | 14 days | 0.8% | Primary group-wide |
| Northstar Lab | Frisco | 118 | $640 | 4.2% | 21 days | 2.1% | Switch under review |
| Apex Dental Lab | Southlake | 42 | $520 | 2.4% | 18 days | 1.2% | Keep · monitor |
| Specialist Zirconia (3rd party) | Full-arch only | 28 | $3,420 | 1.8% | 22 days | 0% | Keep for full-arch |
Restoration TAT trend
Restoration type mix
Implant survival · cohort analysis
| Placement cohort | Implants placed | 3mo survival | 6mo survival | 12mo survival | 24mo survival | Complications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 H1 (T90) | 313 | 99.4% | — | — | — | 3 |
| 2025 H2 | 684 | 99.3% | 99.0% | — | — | 9 |
| 2025 H1 | 628 | 99.4% | 99.1% | 98.9% | — | 11 |
| 2024 H2 | 562 | 99.5% | 99.2% | 98.9% | 98.8% | 12 |
| 2024 H1 | 418 | 99.6% | 99.3% | 99.0% | 98.7% | 10 |
Complication rate by provider
Peri-implantitis incidence by site
Patients — the lifecycle moat
A multispecialty practice's most valuable asset is its post-restoration patient book: high-trust, low-acquisition-cost, recurring-revenue, referral-generating. This pillar answers one question: are we keeping our patients for life — and reactivating the ones drifting away?
Are we keeping our patients for life — and reactivating the ones drifting away?
1,847 post-restoration patients · the moat we're protecting
Lapsing (332) + Lost (259) cohorts · drifting from active care
Maintenance + hygiene + interventions · pure-margin
Patient lifecycle partition · 1,847 post-restoration patients · one bucket per patient
The recare moat · per site
An implant patient who attends their 6-month review for 5 years generates $1,200 of high-margin recurring revenue and is 4.2× less likely to develop peri-implantitis. The moat is the practice's most defensible asset — and it's leaking at 2 of 3 sites.
compliance
compliance
compliance
Three sites · three cohort stories
Locked-in cohort
FORTRESSPlano's cohort is the financial fortress: 86% compliance, 28% high-LTV share, 157 patient-driven referrals (highest in group). The patient flywheel is working — engaged patients refer engaged patients. Defend, don't disrupt.
Drifting cohort
RECOVERABLEFrisco's cohort is drifting, not yet hemorrhaging. The 166 lapsing patients are mostly recoverable — they haven't crossed the 12-month threshold where re-engagement gets hard. Time-sensitive: every month delayed = 8% drop in recovery probability.
Hemorrhaging cohort
URGENTSouthlake is hemorrhaging on both axes: revenue ($73K/yr recurring at risk) and clinical (2.4% peri-implantitis = 11 patients with active bone loss this year). The cohort isn't just lapsing — it's at active clinical risk. This is the most urgent intervention in the entire dashboard.
Patient cohort risk & reactivation lanes
Southlake lapsed cohort — 304 patients, both clinical & financial risk
304 patients at Southlake have not attended recare for >9 months. 27 of them show active peri-implantitis indicators (BoP > 3mm pocket). Without intervention, an estimated 8 will progress to bone loss requiring $1,840 avg intervention.
High-LTV at-risk — 86 patients, $186K LTV exposure
86 patients with LTV >$15K (full-arch + multi-implant) crossed from Engaged into At Risk in the last 60 days. This cohort costs 9× more to replace than to retain. A personal call from the treating provider recovers 78% historical.
Frisco lapsing cohort — 166 patients, time-sensitive
Frisco's lapsing 166 are in the 9–12 month window where reactivation is still 60% probable. Cross into 12+ months and probability drops to 15%. Every month of delay loses ~14 patients. Structured SMS + email + call cascade closes the leak.
Patient referral programme dormancy — 357× ROI channel under-fed
Patient referrals deliver 357× marketing ROI (cross-ref Growth). Meridian runs no formal referral incentive programme. Top 50 high-LTV patients (avg 4.8 social referrals available each) refer 1.4 patients/yr on average without incentive. With $250 incentive: industry avg lifts to 3.2/yr.
Top 10 reactivation priorities · Southlake lapsed cohort AI-Ranked
| # | Patient | Restoration · Brand | Last attended | Lapsed | Clinical risk | LTV at stake | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Patient-3284 Reyes · Jun 2024 | Full-arch upper · Straumann | Dec 2024 | 17 mo | BoP active | $3,800 | Welfare call · clinical |
| 2 | Patient-4288 Reyes · Oct 2024 | Full-arch lower · Nobel | Feb 2025 | 15 mo | BoP active | $3,600 | Welfare call · clinical |
| 3 | Patient-3198 Reyes · May 2024 | Bridge on 4 · Straumann | Nov 2024 | 17 mo | 3mm pocket | $2,900 | High-LTV call |
| 4 | Patient-2917 Reyes · Sep 2024 | 3 lower implants · Nobel | Mar 2025 | 14 mo | No flags | $2,400 | SMS + call |
| 5 | Patient-3552 Locum · Aug 2024 | 2 upper molars · Astra | Cancelled | 9 mo | No flags | $2,200 | Reschedule offer |
| 6 | Patient-3744 Reyes · Jul 2024 | 2 lower premolars · Nobel | Never | 18 mo | No flags | $2,000 | Welfare check |
| 7 | Patient-4101 Reyes · Nov 2024 | Single upper anterior · Straumann | Never | 18 mo | 3mm pocket | $1,800 | Welfare call · clinical |
| 8 | Patient-4012 Reyes · Jan 2025 | Single lower molar · Straumann | Cancelled | 10 mo | No flags | $1,600 | Reschedule offer |
| 9 | Patient-3641 Locum · Sep 2024 | Single upper · Neodent | Feb 2025 | 14 mo | No flags | $1,400 | SMS + call |
| 10 | Patient-2873 Reyes · Apr 2024 | Single lower · Straumann | Aug 2024 | 21 mo | 3mm pocket | $1,800 | Welfare call |
Cohort recovery worklist — ranked by cohort × LTV
| # | Action | Cohort | Site | Owner | $ impact | Patients | Time-to-effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 304-patient hygienist reactivation campaign · Southlake lapsed 25 calls/day × 12 days · clinical-risk prioritised |
Lapsed | Southlake |
Hygienist lead | $89K/yr | ~91 reactivated | 21 days |
| 2 | Principal-provider personal call on 86 high-LTV at-risk patients 15min each · spread across 6 providers · 78% historical recovery |
High-LTV at-risk | All 3 sites | Principal providers | $145K LTV | 67 retained | 14 days |
| 3 | Frisco lapsing cascade · 166-patient SMS+email+call sequence Time-sensitive · 60% recovery probability NOW · drops 8pp/month |
Lapsing | Frisco |
Frisco reception | $25K/yr | 100 retained | 30 days |
| 4 | Roll out Plano "next-recall-at-checkout" SOP to Frisco + Southlake Workflow + training + daily compliance check by site PM |
Engaged retention | Frisco Southlake |
Group PM | $58K/yr | Cohort-wide | Wk 1 training |
| 5 | Activate top-50 Plano patient referral programme $250/referral · compound the 357× ROI channel |
Referral | Plano |
Reception lead | $42K/yr | ~8 new pts | 90 days |
| 6 | Investigate 55 "Never Returned" post-resto patients · satisfaction call Trust gap signal · NPS deep-dive · close any clinical loops |
Never returned | All 3 sites | Practice managers | Trust signal | 55 | 30 days |
| Total cohort impact · 90 days | $302K + 8 complications avoided | ~166 retained | Phased Wk 1–12 | ||||
Patient demographics · group
| Age band | Patients | % of cohort | Avg LTV | Implants placed | Full-arch % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under 35 | 412 | 13% | $4,840 | 82 | 0% |
| 35–49 | 784 | 24% | $6,420 | 186 | 2% |
| 50–64 | 1,168 | 36% | $9,240 | 428 | 12% |
| 65–74 | 682 | 21% | $12,400 | 342 | 22% |
| 75+ | 238 | 7% | $8,200 | 98 | 14% |
New patient trend by site
Cohort retention curve
Maintenance compliance by site · T12
Lapsed maintenance recall · Southlake priority cohort AI-Ranked
| # | Patient | Restoration type | Brand | Last attended | Months lapsed | Remaining LTV | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Patient-3284 Restored Jun 2024 · Reyes | Full-arch upper | Straumann | Dec 2024 | 17 mo | $3,800 | Call · clinical risk |
| 2 | Patient-2917 Restored Sep 2024 · Reyes | 3 lower implants | Nobel | Mar 2025 | 14 mo | $2,400 | SMS + call |
| 3 | Patient-4288 Restored Oct 2024 · Reyes | Full-arch lower | Nobel | Feb 2025 | 15 mo | $3,600 | Call · clinical risk |
| 4 | Patient-3198 Restored May 2024 · Reyes | Bridge on 4 implants | Straumann | Nov 2024 | 17 mo | $2,900 | High-LTV call |
| 5 | Patient-4101 Restored Nov 2024 · Reyes | Single upper anterior | Straumann | Never | 18 mo | $1,800 | Welfare check |
| 6 | Patient-3552 Restored Aug 2024 · Locum | 2 upper molars | Astra | cancelled 1 | 9 mo | $2,200 | Standard SMS |
| 7 | Patient-3744 Restored Jul 2024 · Reyes | 2 lower premolars | Nobel | Never | 18 mo | $2,000 | Welfare check |
| 8 | Patient-4012 Restored Jan 2025 · Reyes | Single lower molar | Straumann | cancelled 6mo | 10 mo | $1,600 | Reschedule offer |
LTV distribution by site
LTV trend · new cohort vintage
Payroll — profitability per clinician per day per chair
The single most important question for a multispecialty practice. This pillar answers it: what is the fully-loaded profitability per clinician per day per chair — and which clinicians are above, at, or below break-even?
What is the fully-loaded profitability per clinician per day per chair?
Profitability per clinician · per hour × per day × per surgery type · T90
Support staff efficiency · cost per throughput unit
Each support role has a productivity metric that scales (or doesn't). Cost per unit answers: are we appropriately staffed for the work?
★ Treatment Coordinator
Hygienist
Surgical Nurse
Three sites · three cost structures
Cost discipline
22.4% PAYROLLPlano's payroll % of revenue is best-in-group (22.4% vs 25.3% group). High utilization + tight materials cost ($580 lab) + low remake rate (1.2%) compound into +$516/hr provider margin. The cost structure is the benchmark.
Throttled by support
26.1% PAYROLLFrisco's surgeons are productive (+$323/hr) but two cost lines bleed margin: lab at 18.2% (vs Plano 14%) and coordinator under-staffing (1.0 FTE for 386 consults). Fix both and Frisco's payroll % drops 4 pts.
Sub-scale loss
31.8% PAYROLLSouthlake is the only site with a surgeon producing negative contribution per hour. The diagnosis: not the provider, the utilization. At 53% util, $365/hr loaded cost beats $337/hr revenue. Lift util to 70% (the Phase 1 plan target) and margin/hr swings +$166 to a healthy +$138.
Cost-side levers — four diagnostic lanes
Southlake negative margin — Reyes at −$28/hr
The only clinician at the practice producing negative contribution. Not a skill issue, not a pricing issue — a utilization issue compounding a sub-scale site. At 53% util × 832 hrs T90, Reyes loses $23K of contribution. At 70% util (Phase 1 plan target), same surgeon, same cost structure, swings to +$23K positive.
Frisco coordinator under-staffing — 1 FTE doing the work of 2
1.0 coord FTE at Frisco supports 386 consults T90. Plano runs 2.0 coord FTE for 412 consults. The throughput gap ($27 vs $51 per consult) looks efficient on paper but it's the under-staffing signal — the coordinator can't do follow-up, plans stall, deposits stall, chair hours sit idle. $42K/yr hire → $186K/yr revenue unlocked.
Frisco lab+materials drag — 18.2% of revenue
Frisco's lab+materials cost is 18.2% of revenue vs Plano's 14.0%. Northstar Lab (4.2% remake rate) is the dominant driver. Switching to alternate supplier (4-week trial in motion) closes $58K/yr direct cost. Materials side is bulk-negotiated already; no further lever.
Southlake hygienist productivity — $114 per visit
Southlake hygienist cost is 1.8× group average per visit ($114 vs $62 Plano). This is a demand problem, not a cost problem: 184 visits T90 vs Plano's 680. Fixing the recare compliance (Patients pillar) raises hygienist visit volume to ~400, dropping cost/visit to $53. Don't cut the role — feed it.
Cost-structure worklist — ranked by $ impact
| # | Action | Lever | Site | Owner | Cost | $ impact | Time-to-effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hire 2nd coordinator at Frisco Unlocks 21 idle chair hrs/wk + 204 stalled plans recovery |
Hire | Frisco |
Frisco PM | +$42K/yr | +$186K/yr | 21d hire · 60d fill |
| 2 | Switch Frisco lab supplier (4-week reversible trial) Northstar → Supplier B · $680/case lower · sub-2% remake |
Supplier | Frisco |
Group clinical lead | $0 (trial) | $58K/yr | 4 weeks trial |
| 3 | Push Reyes util 53% → 70% via lead + recall plan No payroll change · drives margin/hr from −$28 → +$138 |
Utilization | Southlake |
Reyes + marketing | $0 | +$138K/yr swing | 90 days |
| 4 | Hire 0.5 FTE coordinator at Southlake Combined role with marketing analyst · supports Phase 1 momentum |
Hire | Southlake |
Group HR | +$21K/yr | +$38K/yr | Day 61 of plan |
| 5 | Annual contract review on Straumann fixture pricing 5% bulk discount achievable at current volume · $142K spend |
Materials | Group | Group procurement | $0 | $28K/yr | Quarterly review |
| 6 | 6-week Whitfield → Lin full-arch protocol mentoring Cuts Frisco full-arch surgery time 8.9hrs → 8.3hrs |
Protocol | Frisco |
Whitfield · Lin | $0 | $46K/yr | 6 weeks |
| Total cost-side impact · annualised | +$63K/yr | +$494K/yr margin | 7.8× ROI | ||||
Provider profitability matrix · per-hour, per-day, per-case
| Provider | Site | Loaded cost/hr PAY | Util % OPS | Revenue/hr FIN | Margin/hr | Revenue/day | Margin/day | Margin/single-tooth case | Margin/full-arch case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whitfield | Plano | $298 | 93% | $836 | +$538 | $6,990 | $4,498 | $1,820 | $17,196 |
| Mehta | Plano | $262 | 88% | $756 | +$494 | $6,318 | $4,128 | $1,820 | — |
| Lin | Frisco | $285 | 82% | $603 | +$318 | $5,040 | $2,658 | $1,480 | $13,365 |
| Okafor | Frisco | $241 | 74% | $570 | +$329 | $4,770 | $2,754 | $1,480 | — |
| Reyes | Southlake | $365 | 53% | $337 | −$28 | $2,820 | −$234 | $1,240 | $11,890 |
| Locum | Southlake | $420 | 48% | $544 | +$124 | $4,560 | $1,038 | $1,240 | — |
| Group | 5.5 FTE | $302 | 75% | $631 | +$329 | $5,420 | $2,762 | $1,528 | $15,307 |
Margin per surgeon · 12-month trend
Surgeon revenue / cost ratio
Support staff cost · per FTE per site
| Role | Site | FTE | Loaded cost T90 | Cost / FTE | Throughput metric | Cost / unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment coordinator | Plano | 2.0 | $21,000 | $10.5K | 412 consults | $51 / consult |
| Treatment coordinator | Frisco | 1.0 | $10,500 | $10.5K | 386 consults | $27 / consult |
| Treatment coordinator | Southlake | 0.5 | $5,250 | $10.5K | 196 consults | $27 / consult |
| Surgical nurse | Plano | 3 | $48,000 | $16K | 196 surgeries | $245 |
| Surgical nurse | Frisco | 2 | $32,000 | $16K | 128 surgeries | $250 |
| Surgical nurse | Southlake | 2 | $28,000 | $14K | 64 surgeries | $438 |
| Hygienist | Plano | 2 | $42,000 | $21K | 680 maint visits | $62 / visit |
| Hygienist | Frisco | 1 | $21,000 | $21K | 420 maint visits | $50 |
| Hygienist | Southlake | 1 | $21,000 | $21K | 184 maint visits | $114 |
| Reception / admin | All sites | 5 | $82,000 | $16.4K | 994 consult check-ins | $82 |
Materials cost breakdown · per case type
| Component | Single | Multi | Full-arch | Group T90 spend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implant fixtures (Straumann premium) | $460 | $1,380 | $1,840 | $128,400 |
| Abutments + healing caps | $140 | $420 | $640 | $42,800 |
| Bone graft material | $0 | $180 | $420 | $24,200 |
| Surgical kit / consumables | $62 | $94 | $148 | $18,200 |
| Other (drapes, sutures, anaesthetic) | $28 | $44 | $68 | $8,400 |
| Avg materials per case | $690 | $2,118 | $3,116 | $222,000 |
Lab spend by supplier · T90
Materials spend trend · 12mo
Location Compare — benchmark, gap, lever
Operations is one site's story · Finance another's · Patients another's. This cross-cut view asks: which site sets the benchmark on each pillar, and what's the value of closing the gap on the other two?
Which site sets the benchmark on each pillar — and what's the value of closing the gap on the other two?
BENCHMARK MAP · CLOSE THE GAP TO LEADER ON EACH PILLAR Total gap-closure value · $2.43M (gross, before cross-pillar de-dup)
Side-by-side · marquee metrics from each bespoke pillar
| KPI | Plano | Frisco | Southlake | Gap to benchmark | Lever (jump to pillar) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operations Gap-closure · $427K | |||||
| Operatory utilization | 91% | 78% | 51% | Frisco −13pp · Southlake −40pp | → Capacity Story |
| White space hrs/week (lower = better) | 9.4 | 21.0 | 38.4 | Frisco +11.6 · Southlake +29.0 | → Schedule & Util |
| Call answer rate | 92% | 81% | 51% | Frisco −11pp · Southlake −41pp | → Telephony |
| No-show rate (lower = better) | 4.8% | 8.6% | 12.4% | Frisco +3.8pp · Southlake +7.6pp | → Appointments |
| Same-day book at consult | 64% | 48% | 28% | Frisco −16pp · Southlake −36pp | → Capacity Story |
| Finance Gap-closure · $346K | |||||
| Net margin % | 34.9% | 20.7% | −0.8% | Frisco −14pp · Southlake −36pp | → Case Economics |
| Revenue per chair-hour | $610 | $487 | $284 | Frisco −$123 · Southlake −$326 | → Revenue |
| Avg case value | $7,240 | $6,150 | $4,820 | Frisco −$1,090 · Southlake −$2,420 | → Revenue |
| Full-arch margin per case | $17,196 | $13,365 | $11,890 | Frisco −$3,831 · Southlake −$5,306 | → Unit Economics |
| DSO (days sales outstanding) (lower = better) | 18 | 26 | 42 | Frisco +8d · Southlake +24d | → Collections |
| Growth Gap-closure · $612K | |||||
| Case acceptance rate | 71% | 56% | 41% | Frisco −15pp · Southlake −30pp | → Lead-to-Bank Journey |
| Lead → consult conversion | 74% | 56% | 41% | Frisco −18pp · Southlake −33pp | → Lead Pipeline |
| Marketing ROI multiple | 49× | 29× | 16× | Frisco −20× · Southlake −33× | → Marketing ROI |
| Patient referral % of leads | 38% | 22% | 14% | Frisco −16pp · Southlake −24pp | → Marketing ROI |
| Stalled plans >30d (lower = better) | 26 | 128 | 50 | Frisco +102 · Southlake +24 | → Case Acceptance |
| Clinical Gap-closure · $249K + 11 complications avoided | |||||
| Lab remake rate (lower = better) | 1.2% | 4.2% | 2.4% | Frisco +3.0pp · Southlake +1.2pp | → Performance Matrix |
| Complication rate (lower = better) | 0.7% | 0.8% | 1.9% | Frisco +0.1pp · Southlake +1.2pp | → Outcomes & Survival |
| Guided surgery % | 88% | 76% | 62% | Frisco −12pp · Southlake −26pp | → Surgeries |
| Implant / OS cases T90 | 142 | 118 | 53 | Frisco −24 · Southlake −89 | → Surgeries |
| High-value cases T90 | 18 | 9 | 1 | Frisco −9 · Southlake −17 | → Surgeries |
| Patients Gap-closure · $302K + 8 complications avoided | |||||
| Recare compliance | 86% | 71% | 38% | Frisco −15pp · Southlake −48pp | → Recare & Recall |
| Recurring rev / pt / yr | $256 | $198 | $94 | Frisco −$58 · Southlake −$162 | → LTV & Segmentation |
| Peri-implantitis T12 (lower = better) | 0.4% | 1.1% | 2.4% | Frisco +0.7pp · Southlake +2.0pp | → Lifecycle Moat |
| Lapsed >9mo cohort (lower = better) | 62 | 166 | 304 | Frisco +104 · Southlake +242 | → Recare & Recall |
| Patient referrals T90 | 157 | 86 | 35 | Frisco −71 · Southlake −122 | → Lifecycle Moat |
| Payroll Gap-closure · $494K/yr at +$63K cost | |||||
| Margin per chair-hour | +$516 | +$323 | +$48 | Frisco −$193 · Southlake −$468 | → Profitability Matrix |
| Surgeon payroll % rev (lower = better) | 22.4% | 26.1% | 31.8% | Frisco +3.7pp · Southlake +9.4pp | → Provider Economics |
| Lab + materials % rev (lower = better) | 14.0% | 18.2% | 15.6% | Frisco +4.2pp · Southlake +1.6pp | → Lab & Materials |
| Loaded cost / surgeon / hr (lower = better · Frisco leads!) | $280 | $263 | $392 | Plano +$17 · Southlake +$129 | → Provider Economics |
| Coordinator FTE per 200 consults | 0.97 | 0.52 | 0.51 | Frisco −0.45 · Southlake −0.46 | → Support Staff Costs |
| TOTAL GAP-CLOSURE OPPORTUNITY · all 3 sites brought to benchmark | $2.43M gross · $1.4–1.8M net of cross-pillar overlap | ||||
Specialty mix × site · case volume + margin contribution
Each site sells a different case-mix. Plano indexes premium (high-value implants, oral surgery + ortho dominance); Frisco mid-mix (balanced, ortho + hygiene heavy); Southlake general-led (restorative + hygiene, minimal specialty depth). This is the structural reason for the per-chair-hour margin spread.