ArticlePDF Available

Treatment time: SureSmile vs conventional

Authors:
  • Metametrix Clinical Laboratory

Abstract and Figures

Aim: To understand the efficiency of SureSmile treatment vs conventional treatment. Methods: First, 12,335 completed patient histories representing different treatment philosophies and geographically diverse practices were collected. Included were 9,390 SureSmile patients and 2,945 conventional patients. Variables in these patient records included: (1) treatment time, months from bonding to debonding; (2) malocclusion class, Angle Class I, II, or III; (3) patient age, adolescents (< 18 years) or adults (≥ 18 years); and (4) patient visits, total number of treatment visits. Nonparametric regression tests were used to analyze the data. Results: The median treatment time for the SureSmile patient pool (15 months) was 8 months shorter than that of the conventional patient pool (23 months). The median care cycle length of Class II SureSmile patients (13 months) was 2 months shorter than that of Class I SureSmile patients (15 months) and 3 months shorter than that of Class III SureSmile patients (16 months). SureSmile patients (14 visits) had four fewer median treatment visits than conventional patients (18 visits). All results were significant at P = .001. No significant differences were noted between the median care cycle lengths of adolescents and adults. Conclusion: This study found that SureSmile treatment facilitates more timely care than conventional treatment. Further prospective studies are required to elucidate the effectiveness of SureSmile treatment.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sientic
Iovati
72 ORTHODONTICS e Ar n Pace  Dntocia Enancemen
1 Cofounder and Chief
Clinical Ofcer, OraMetrix,
Richardson, Texas, USA.
2 Clinical Research Program
Coordinator, OraMetrix,
Richardson, Texas, USA.
3 Senior Vice President,
The Dallas Marketing
Group, Dallas, Texas, USA;
Advisory Board, University
of Texas at Dallas, Dallas,
Texas, USA.
4 President, Market
Research Answers, Dallas,
Texas, USA; Advisory
Board, University of Texas
at Dallas, Dallas, Texas,
USA.
5 Intern, OraMetrix,
Richardson, Texas, USA.
6 Professor, Program
Di rec tor, and Cha ir,
Department of
Orthodontics, University
of Oklahoma Health
Sciences Center,
Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, USA.
7 Clinical Assistant
Professor, Department of
Orthodontics, University
of Oklahoma Health
Sciences Center,
Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, USA.
CORRESPONDENCE
Dr Rohit C.L. Sachdeva
OraMetrix
2350 Campbell Creek Blvd
#400
Richardson, TX 75082
Email: rohit.sachdeva@
orametrix.com
Treatment time:
SureSmile vs conventional
Rohit C.L. Sachdeva, BDS, MDentSc1
Sharan L.T. Aranha, BDS, MPA2
Michael E. Egan, PhD3
Harold T. Gross, PhD4
Nikita S. Sachdeva5
G. Frans Currier, DDS, MSD, Med6
Onur Kadioglu, DDS, MS7
Aim: To understand the efciency of SureSmile treatment vs conventional
treatment. Methods: First, 12,335 completed patient histories representing
different treatment philosophies and geographically diverse practices were
collected. Included were 9,390 SureSmile patients and 2,945 conventional patients.
Variables in these patient records included: (1) treatment time, months from
bonding to debonding; (2) malocclusion class, Angle Class I, II, or III; (3) patient
age, adolescents (< 18 years) or adults (≥ 18 years); and (4) patient visits, total
number of treatment visits. Nonparametric regression tests were used to analyze
the data. Results: The median treatment time for the SureSmile patient pool
(15 months) was 8 months shorter than that of the conventional patient pool (23
months). The median care cycle length of Class II SureSmile patients (13 months)
was 2 months shorter than that of Class I SureSmile patients (15 months) and 3
months shorter than that of Class III SureSmile patients (16 months). SureSmile
patients (14 visits) had four fewer median treatment visits than conventional
patients (18 visits). All results were signicant at P = .001. No signicant differences
were noted between the median care cycle lengths of adolescents and adults.
Conclusion: This study found that SureSmile treatment facilitates more timely care
than conventional treatment. Further prospective studies are required to elucidate
the effectiveness of SureSmile treatment. O
rthOdOntic s
(c
hic
) 2012;13:72–85.
Key words: conventional, efciency, SureSmile, treatment time
Patients frequently consider length of treatment as a factor in their deci-
sion to pursue orthodontic care.1–4 Hickory5 evaluated responses from
1,520 orthodontic patients to better understand what they were willing
to pay for a reduced-length care cycle. His study determined that a quarter of
respondents were willing to pay a 40% premium for a 30% reduction in time.
The majority of respondents did not object to paying 10% more for reduced
treatment time. Therefore, it is clear that many patients are willing to cover
greater costs for shorter treatment times. Numerous studies have also dem-
onstrated a positive correlation between shorter orthodontic treatment time
and patient satisfaction.6–9
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
73Volume 13, 2012
Healthcare policymakers have recognized the importance of shorter treat-
ment times. The Institute of Medicine advocates efciency, effectiveness, and
timeliness of care as three of the six dimensions of quality care.10 The British
Orthodontic Society recommends that patients be adequately informed re-
garding the length of care.11 Extended length of care negatively affects pa-
tient compliance and may result in poor quality of care.12–14 Furthermore, an
extended care cycle adversely affects clinical operations, productivity, and rev-
enue generation.15,16 Patients, parents, and practices all benet from a shorter,
more predictable care cycle. Therefore, it is imperative for clinicians to un-
derstand the factors that impact orthodontic treatment duration in hopes of
maximizing patient convenience and practice productivity.
Studies note that treatment time generally ranges from 18.3 to 31.3
months.2,3,17,18 Sameshima19 reported a mean treatment time of 28 months in
North America. The wide range in duration of treatment is probably due to the
varying interactions of factors such as patient sex, age at onset of care, patient
compliance, severity of malocclusion, nature of treatment, type of appliances,
and the experience of the care provider.6,19–21
In the past decade or so, orthodontics has witnessed the development of new
technologies in the xed appliance arena, namely Insignia (Ormco), orthoCAD
(Cadent), iBraces (3M Unitek), and SureSmile (OraMetrix). These technologies
enable clinicians to provide computer-driven customized care solutions at vary-
ing levels. By minimizing the reactive care process, SureSmile has the transforma-
tive potential of affecting the duration of orthodontic care in clinical practice.22–26
SureSmile was designed to provide a completely integrated, clinical solu-
tion to the extended care cycle. Three-dimensional (3D) imaging, clinical de-
cision support, treatment surveillance, and customized therapeutics enable
orthodontists to minimize iterative care processes and potentially reduce the
duration of care without compromising quality.23–33 Saxe et al34 recently stud-
ied the efciency and effectiveness of SureSmile vs conventional treatment.
The authors collected 62 pre- and posttreatment plaster casts of consecutively
treated SureSmile patients and conventionally treated patients from the prac-
tices of three diplomates of the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO). The
mean ABO objective grading system (OGS) score was 26.3 for SureSmile and
30.7 for conventional treatment. This difference of 4.4 points was signicant
at P = .001. The mean treatment time with SureSmile was 14.7 months vs
20 months for conventional treatment (P = .001). SureSmile demonstrated a
25% reduction treatment duration and an improvement of 14.3% in ABO OGS
scores.34 Similarly, Alford et al compared the treatment times of 69 SureSmile
and 63 conventionally treated patients. The mean treatment time with Sure-
Smile was 15.8 months vs 23 months for conventional treatment. SureSmile
demonstrated a 31% reduction treatment duration and an improvement of
11% in ABO cast/radiographic evaluation (CRE) scores.35
The purpose of this study is to understand the efciency of SureSmile using
a larger sample size while considering different variables than previous studies.
Although Saxe et al34 and Alford et al35 provided the initial steps in identifying
the clinical benets of SureSmile, the robust sample size (12,335 patients) and
diversied practitioner base (142 practices) characteristic of this study allows
for a clearer understanding of the clinical impact of SureSmile on the duration
of the care cycle.
Patients frequently consider length of treatment as a factor
in their decision to pursue orthodontic care.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Treatment time: SureSmile vs conventional
74 ORTHODONTICS e Ar n Pace  Dntocia Enancemen
Sientic
Iovati
METHODS
In 2003, OraMetrix developed an ongoing system to collect completed treat-
ment records of both SureSmile and conventional patients from volunteer
SureSmile practices. The purpose of the system is to elucidate clinicians’ per-
formance characteristics and provide feedback on better clinical practices. By
2008, this program, Comparative Effectiveness Research Program (CERP), re-
ceived more than 12,000 completed orthodontic patient histories from a di-
verse group of geographical practices, patient types, treatment philosophies,
and clinician experiences. This is the rst extensive study dedicated to investi-
gating SureSmile’s impact on the duration of treatment time as well as factors
that inuence treatment time.
Patient samples
This study used the CERP database from 2003 through 2008, which consisted
of data submitted by 142 SureSmile practices throughout the United States.
At the time of analysis, a total of 12,335 patient records had been submitted,
containing a mix of two treatment types: SureSmile (9,390 patients) and con-
ventional (2,945 patients). Variables in these patient records included: (1) treat-
ment time, months from bonding to debonding; (2) malocclusion class, Angle
Class I, II, or III; (3) patient age, adolescents (< 18 years) or adults (≥ 18 years);
and (4) patient visits, total number of treatment visits (Fig 1).
Some records were incomplete as they lacked information on the distri-
bution of Angle classication of malocclusion and patient age. Hence, these
incomplete records could not be used for the analysis of these variables, re-
sulting in the smaller samples as shown in Fig 1.
This study did not utilize any protected patient medical or dental informa-
tion by the practices. Only selective treatment attributes were used for the
analysis. Therefore, institutional review board approval was not obtained.
Data analysis
The objective of this analysis was to statistically identify and quantify the key de-
terminants of the efciency of SureSmile protocol vs conventional orthodontic
treatment. The parameter for statistical signicance was a P value less than .001.
(n = 12,335)
2,945
9,390 2,796
2,630 2,236
604
(n = 5,426)
(n = 2,840)
Treatment time/visits
(total sample size) Malocclusion class
(Class I, II, and III) Patient age
(adolescent and adult)
Conventional
SureSmile
Fig 1 Sample size and variables studied.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Volume 13, 2012
Sachdeva et al
75
Sientic
Iovati
The CERP data had a signicant degree of skewness and kurtosis and were
not normally distributed, rendering conventional regression analysis inappro-
priate. (Skewness and kurtosis were calculated as the third and fourth mo-
ments of a distribution, respectively. Measures of skewness and kurtosis equal
to or greater than twice their respective standard errors were deemed to show
a signicant departure from normality.) Therefore, nonparametric regression
was used to analyze the data via SPSS (IBM). This methodology requires that
all records contain a complete set of variables; however, as previously noted,
some records were incomplete and could not be used for statistical analysis.
All 12,335 records were used for treatment time analysis, although only sub-
sets of the record pool containing attributes other than treatment time were
used for malocclusion and age analysis.
RESULT S
Treatment months
SureSmile patients experienced shorter treatment times than conventinal pa-
tients. SureSmile patients experienced 15 months of median treatment time,
while conventionally treated patients experienced 23 months of median treat-
ment time (Table 1).
Malocclusion class
The shorter treatment time associated with SureSmile was evident for all class-
es of patients. SureSmile Class I, II, and III patients experienced 15, 13, and 16
months of median treatment time, respectively, while conventionally treated
Class I, II, and III experienced 22, 22, and 24 months of median treatment time,
respectively (Table 2).
Patient age
Where patient age was available, patients were grouped as either adolescents
(younger than 18 years) or adults (ages 18 and older). Median treatment times
for both SureSmile adolescents (16 months) and adults (15 months) were signif-
icantly less than those of conventionally treated adolescents and adults (both
Table 1 Mean and median values for treatment months
Treatment nMedian Mean SD Mean difference Signicance
SureSmile 9,39 0 15 16 6.75 8< .001
Conventional 2,945 23 24 8.24
SD, standard deviation.
Table 2 Mean and median values for treatment months by patient class
Class Treatment nMedian Mean SD Mean difference Signicance
ISureSmile
Conventional
1,478
1,2 02
15
22
16
24
6.92
9.2 3 8< .001
II SureSmile
Conventional
892
773
13
22
14
23
5.68
6.86 9< .001
III SureSmile
Conventional
260
821
16
24
17
25
7.19
8.33 8< .001
SD, standard deviation.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Treatment time: SureSmile vs conventional
76 ORTHODONTICS e Ar n Pace  Dntocia Enancemen
Sientic
Iovati
24 months). Patient age appears to exert only a modest inuence on SureSmile
treatment efciency, for the median length of treatment time for adults was just
1 month less than that of adolescents (Table 3).
Treatment visits
With a median treatment time of 8 months less than that of conventional-
ly treated patients, SureSmile patients also experienced four fewer median
treatment visits than conventional patients. SureSmile patients experienced
a median of 14 visits to their orthodontist over the course of treatment, while
conventional patients experienced a median of 18 visits (Table 4).
Frequency distribution of the data
Plots of CERP data distribution also demonstrate treatment time trends. Figure 2
shows the distribution of the median treatment times for both SureSmile and
Table 3 Mean and median values for treatment months by patient age
Treatment Group nMedian Mean SD
Mean
difference Signicance
Adolescents SureSmile
Conventional
1,3 82
479
16
24
16
25
7.18
8.14 8< .001
Adults SureSmile
Conventional
854
125
15
24
17
25
7.14
9.07 9< .001
SD, standard deviation.
Table 4 Mean and median values for treatment visits
Treatment nMedian Mean SD Mean difference Signicance
SureSmile 9,39 0 14 15 6 .16 4< .001
Conventional 2,945 18 19 7.31
SD, standard deviation.
Treatment mo
No. of records
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
SureSmile
(median, 15 mo)
Conventional
(median, 23 mo)
Fig 2 Frequency distribution of median treatment times for both treatment groups.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Volume 13, 2012
Sachdeva et al
77
Sientic
Iovati
conventional patients. The median value for SureSmile treatment time was
8 months less than that of conventional treatment. Figure 3 shows the per-
centiles of patients treated as a function of time for both treatment groups.
Fifty percent of SureSmile patients experienced a care cycle of 15 months or
less, while 50% of conventionally treated patients experienced a care cycle of
23 months or less (Fig 3).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to understand the efciency of SureSmile vs con-
ventional treatment. Variables studied were treatment time, number of treat-
ment visits, malocclusion class, and patient age.
Treatment time analysis
Various authors have studied the inuence of factors, such as severity of maloc-
clusion, treatment method, patient age, and type of appliance, on the length
of treatment time. Table 5 summarizes the results of previous studies on the
duration of the care cycle. As shown in Table 5, many of these studies were
limited by sample sizes ranging from 5 to 605 patient records. Depending
upon the variable studied, the average treatment time of conventional meth-
ods ranged from 19.1 to 57 months.
Studies on the efciency of customized digital therapeutics are generally
lacking. However, a number of investigations have been conducted on Sure-
Smile, albeit on limited sample sizes. Saxe et al34 studied 38 SureSmile and
24 conventional patients from three clinicians, and Alford et al35 studied
69 SureSmile and 63 conventional patients from one clinician. Conversely, the
current study was conducted on 9,390 SureSmile and 2,945 conventional pa-
tients from 142 practices.
Treatment mo
Records of patients (%)
100
80
90
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
SureSmile Conventional
Fig 3 Percentiles of patients treated as a function of time for both treatment groups.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Treatment time: SureSmile vs conventional
78 ORTHODONTICS e Ar n Pace  Dntocia Enancemen
Sientic
Iovati
Table 5a Studies reviewed and grouped according to their characteristics and ndings:
Type of malocclusion
Article Classication of malocclusion Total sample size Mean treatment time (mo)
Wenger et al36 Class I 605 26 ± 13.4
Vig et al37 Class I 399 24.6 ± 11.6
Skidmore et al2Class I 135 21.9 ± 4.6
Popowich et al38 Class I 77 20.3 ± 6.0
Campbell et al39 Class I 146 38.5 ± 14.3
O’Brien et al40 Class II Division 1 250 28 .1
Wenger et al36 Class II 760 2 9.9 ± 12. 2
Vig et al37 Class II 567 29.0 ± 11.2
Skidmore et al2Class II 226 24.5 ± 4.5
Popowich et al38 Class II Division 1 160 24.4 ± 6.2
Janson et al41 Class II 97 25.8
Janson et al42 Class II 112 28.2
Campbell et al39 Class II Division 1 36 42.6 ± 14.8
Wenger et al36 Class III 52 28.0 ± 17.0
Skidmore et al2Class III 5 23.0 ± 5.3
Cassinelli et al43 Easy
Difcult
Easy (95)
Difcult (84)
Easy (24.8 ± 17.4)
Difcult (33.8 ± 12.8)
Table 5b Studies reviewed and grouped according to their characteristics and ndings:
Type of treatment
Article Treatment method Total sample size Mean treatment time (mo)
Alger44 Nonextraction
Extraction
37
55
19.1
23.7
Vig et al45 Class II Division 1 extraction
Class II Division 1 nonextraction
236
202
31.3 ± 13.2
31.2 ± 14.6
O’Brien et al40 Class II extraction
Class II nonextraction
171
79
30.6 ± 10.4
24.8 ± 9.2
Vig et al37 Class I and II extraction
Class I and II nonextraction
411
583
29.4 ± 11.3
24.0 ± 11.2
Popowich et al38 Class I nonextraction
Class II Division 1 nonextraction
Class II Divison 1 extrac tion
77
81
79
20.3 ± 6.0
25.7 ± 6.8
25.0 ± 5.5
Janson et al41 Class II maxillar y premolar extraction
Class II four premolar extraction
49
48
23.5 ± 5.86
28.1 ± 7.59
Janson et al42 Class II nonextraction
Class II maxillary premolar extraction
43
69
29.7 ± 9.7
26.7 ± 10.5
Campbell et al39 Class II extraction 30 44.0 ± 14.5
Luther et al46 Orthodontic/orthognathic surgery 69 Presurgical (27 [range, 7–47])
Postoperative (8 [range, 5–11])
Hall et al47 Surgical-orthodontic treatment: (extraction
vs nonextraction and leveling of the curve
of Spee before or after operation)
37 26.8
Presurgical (17.5)
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Volume 13, 2012
Sachdeva et al
79
Sientic
Iovati
The current study showed that SureSmile treatment time was signicantly
shorter than conventional treatment time. The median SureSmile treatment time
was 15 months, which is 8 months shorter than the median conventional treat-
ment time of 23 months (P < .001). SureSmile patients also experienced four
fewer median treatment visits than conventionally treated patients (P < .001).
Table 5c Studies reviewed and grouped according to their characteristics and ndings:
Age of patient
Article Age group Total sample size Mean treatment time (mo)
Robb et al18 Adults
Adolescents
32 (mean age, 31.3 y)
40 (mean age, 12.9 y)
30.6 ± 8.0
29.4 ± 8.8
Von Bremen and Pancher z48 Early mixed
Late mixed
Permanent
54
104
46
57
33
21
Hsieh et al49 Early
Late
86 (mean age, 10.5 y)
322 (mean age, 13.4 y)
45.2 ± 15.4
33.3 ± 11.7
Campbell et al39 Adults
Early treatment
45 (mean age, 32.3 y)
134 (mean age 10.8 y)
Adults (41.2 ± 12.61)
Early treatment (49.0 ± 12.61)
Table 5d Studies reviewed and grouped according to their characteristics and ndings:
Type of appliance
Article Type of appliance Total sample size Mean treatment time (mo)
Von Bremen
and Pancherz48
Appliance: functional (with or without preceding expansion
with maxillary plates), combination (functional and xed
appliances in combination), Herbst (in combination with
multibracket appliances), and multibracket
Functional (32)
Combination (91)
Herbst (42)
Multibracket (39)
Functional (38)
Combination (49)
Herbs t (19)
Multibracket (24)
Breuning et al50 Class II (skeletal) treatment groups:
group A (headgear–activator, xed appliances, and
intraoral osteodistraction of the mandible), group B
(xed appliances and intraoral distraction), and
group C (xed appliances and bilateral sagittal
split osteotomy)
Group A (10)
Group B (19)
Group C (13)
Group A
(44.2 [range, 29–63])
Group B
(28.6 [range, 16– 40])
Group C
(34.7 [range, 19–55])
Amditis and
Smith51
Fixed appliances (bracket slots)
0.018- inch
0.022-inch
64
21.0
0.018-inch (20.2)
0.022-inch (21.7)
Eberting et al52 Bracket type:
Damon self-ligating
Steel ligature/elastomeric O ring
Damon (52)
Conventional (48)
Damon (14.4–23.4)
Conventional (22.8–32.6)
Tag awa53 Bracket type:
Damon self-ligating
Conventional self-ligating
Damon (66)
Conventional (66)
Damon (20.3)
Conventional (27.5)
Clark and
Gebbie54
Bracket type:
In-Ovation R
Conventional
In-Ovation R (114)
Conventional (241)
In-Ovation R (19.8)
Conventional (23.7)
Mascarenhas
and Vig55
Comparison of graduate orthodontic clinic
(GOC) and private practice orthodontics
(PPO)—all case types
GOC (165)
PPO (143 )
GOC (33.0)
PPO (27.5)
Christy et al56 GOC—all case types, bracket t ype, and
compliance (2004–2006)
455 29. 0
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Treatment time: SureSmile vs conventional
80 ORTHODONTICS e Ar n Pace  Dntocia Enancemen
Sientic
Iovati Malocclusion type and treatment time
Of the records evaluated, 2,630 SureSmile records and 2,796 conventional
records contained information on the type of malocclusion. The results dem-
onstrated that Class I SureSmile patients experienced median care cycle
lengths of 15 vs 22 months for Class I conventional patients; Class II SureSmile
patients, 13 vs 22 months for Class II conventional patients; and Class III
SureSmile patients, 16 vs 24 months for Class III conventional patients. For all
types of malocclusions, SureSmile patients experienced signicantly shorter
care cycles than conventionally treated patients (P < .001). Previous studies
indicate that Class I patients usually experience shorter treatment durations
than Class II and III patients.2,37,38,57,58 Surprisingly, Class II SureSmile patients
experienced a shorter median treatment time than Class I SureSmile patients.
Possible reasons for this nding include the fact that mild dental Class II types
were included in the Class II category and that Class I patients had more severe
crowding than Class II patients.
Patient age and treatment time
Of the records evaluated, 2,236 SureSmile records and 604 conventional re-
cords included information on patient age. The results showed that the me-
dian treatment times for both SureSmile adolescents (16 months) and adults
(15 months) were signicantly less than those of conventionally treated adoles-
cents and adults (both 24 months, P < .001). The current study did not nd any
signicant differences between the treatment times of SureSmile adolescents
and adults and conventionally treated adolescents and adults (P < .001). Simi-
larly, Dyer et al59 found no signicant differences between the treatment times
of conventionally treated adolescents and adults (P < .05).
Other treatment modalities and treatment time
The SureSmile patient records were not classied as extraction and/or surgical
cases; therefore, the inuence of extraction and/or surgery on the length of
treatment time was not analyzed in the current study. Previous studies, however,
have found that extraction does not contribute signicantly to an extended care
cycle.56 Fink and Smith3 concluded that the extraction of a single premolar, two
premolars, and four premolars contributed to 0.9, 1.8, and 3.6 additional months
of treatment, respectively. Based on the aforementioned research, it may be as-
sumed that extraction therapy in SureSmile patients would add no more than
4 months of treatment time (19 months), which would still be considered shorter
than the mean treatment time of extraction therapy in a conventionally treated
patient (28.12 months).3
Attributes of SureSmile technology affecting care cycle
SureSmile provides an integrated digital technology platform that enables cli-
nicians to diagnose, plan, and design a customized therapeutic solution in the
form of a prescription archwire for the patient. The components of SureSmile
technology that may impact the length of the care cycle are discussed below.
3D imaging. SureSmile’s 3D-imaging environment allows for improved spa-
tial visualization, localization, and measurement of the dentition in all three
planes of space. Bouwens et al60 noted a signicant difference between root
angulation measurements from panoramic and 3D cone beam computed to-
mography (CBCT) images. That research found panoramic images to be dis-
torted and therefore unreliable as a means of assessing tooth angulations
and visualizing roots. Similarly, Okumura et al61 and Kattan et al62 determined
that 3D virtual imaging provides a more precise display of morphologic fea-
tures than 2D imaging systems and is potentially useful for routine treatment
diagnosis.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Volume 13, 2012
Sachdeva et al
81
Sientic
Iovati
Decision support system. SureSmile provides a robust, interactive decision
support system driven by simulations. Through simulations, a clinician can vi-
sualize and validate the mental model of a plan with regard to treatment po-
sition.63 Furthermore, the treatment plan can be designed interactively with
the patient. Almog and Sanchez64 demonstrated that computer-imaging simu-
lations provide patients with a better understanding of proposed treatment
plans. Morisky et al65 demonstrated that better-informed patients generally
adhere to treatment protocols more diligently, which favorably impacts the
care cycle. Morisky et al65 randomly assigned patients into two groups, a spe-
cial intervention group composed of well-informed patients and a usual care
control group, and found that the special intervention group experienced sig-
nicantly higher levels of adherence to medical protocols than the usual care
group (68% vs 38%, P < .001).
The SureSmile decision support system also allows for interprofessional col-
laboration since clinicians share their treatment plans with and seek clinical
advice from one another. Both patient-clinician and interprofessional collabo-
ration may minimize the disconnection in treatment objectives.66
Integrated clinical pathway. SureSmile software has built-in workow auto-
mation and standardized checklists that provide a framework for the sequential
management of patient care. Wolff et al67 showed that the incorporation of
checklists in clinical pathways results in improvements in the quality of pa-
tient care and builds reliability. His study also showed a positive correlation
between the clinical pathway program and patient compliance. Furthermore,
Hales and Pronovost68 determined that the use of checklists improves the de-
livery of patient care and controls for error.
Robotic technology. The use of conventional appliances largely requires
iterative changes to bracket position coupled with archwire bends, which
prolongs care.69,70 Studies on the reliability of conventional straight-wire ap-
pliances reveal that bracket slots have relatively poor tolerances, which may
lead to imprecise tooth movement and add to treatment time. Conversely,
a predened plan drives the design of the SureSmile customized prescrip-
tion archwire. The angular and torsional bends of the robotically bent archwire
are precise to ± 1 degree and linear bends are precise to ± 0.1 mm.33 The
coupling of the clinician’s plan and the prescription archwire overcomes the
reactive elements of orthodontic care and enhances the reliability of appliance
design. In turn, the movement of the dentition is more directed, potentially
resulting in a shorter care cycle.
Practitioner experience. This investigation did not study the impact of the
clinician’s skill and the learning curve on the length and quality of treatment.
Numerous studies in the medical arena have demonstrated an association be-
tween cumulative experience and improved performance using new technolo-
gies in health care. This is to be expected with the use of SureSmile technology
as well. SureSmile technology in itself is not a magic bullet. It is only an en-
abling technology. Successful treatment outcomes can only be achieved in a
timely manner when care is driven by an expert who has accumulated experi-
ence through deliberate practice.71–74
Limitations. While the number of records used for this analysis is quite ro-
bust, a substantial number of records lacked information that could have pro-
vided additional value to the current study. Furthermore, the records were
collected from multiple practices that were not calibrated in terms of data
collection, which could impact the accuracy of the provided variables, such
as malocclusion type. A means of addressing the sometimes imprecise and
incomplete nature of records is the establishment of a consistent method of
data classication and entry.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Treatment time: SureSmile vs conventional
82 ORTHODONTICS e Ar n Pace  Dntocia Enancemen
Sientic
Iovati Future studies. To further clarify the impact of SureSmile technology on
patients, further studies must be conducted. Variables such as degree of case
difculty, nature of treatment, bracket type, practitioner experience, practice
location, and reliability of appliance systems must be considered as inuences
on treatment time. A randomized, prospective clinical study of SureSmile vs
conventional treatment would be an important second step in understanding
the efciency and effectiveness of SureSmile. Additionally, studies evaluating
the impact of each unique clinical pathway of SureSmile technology as well as
the integrated process itself are necessary.
CONCLUSION
This study determined the efciency of SureSmile vs conventional treatment in
terms of treatment time and additional variables that inuence treatment time.
On the basis of the results of this study of 12,335 patients from 142 SureSmile
orthodontic practices, the following statistically signicant (P < .001) conclu-
sions may be drawn:
• SureSmile patients experienced a median treatment time of 15 months,
which is 8 months less than that of conventional patients (23 months).
• SureSmile patients experienced a median treatment visitation period of 14
visits, which is a period of four fewer visits than that of conventional patients
(18 visits).
• Class I, II, and III SureSmile patients experienced care cycles 8 to 9 months
shorter than those of Class I, II, and III conventional patients.
• Class II SureSmile patients experienced shorter care cycles than Class I
SureSmile patients, and Class III SureSmile patients experienced the longest
care cycles in the SureSmile patient group.
• SureSmile adolescents and adults did not experience statistically signicant
differences in treatment time.
DISCLOSURE
Dr Rohit C.L. Sachdeva has nancial interest in OraMetrix, the company behind the SureSmile
treatment concept. The second and fth authors, Dr Sharan L.T. Aranha and Nikita S. Sachdeva,
are employed by OraMetrix.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Arjun Sachdeva for his invaluable assistance in preparation of this
manuscript.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Volume 13, 2012
Sachdeva et al
83
Sientic
Iovati
REFERENCES
1. Mavreas D, Athanasiou AE. Factors af fect-
ing the duration of orthodontic treat-
ment: A systematic review. Eur J Or thod
2008;30:386–395.
2. Skidmore K, Brook K, Thomson W, Hard-
ing W. Factors inuencing treatment time
in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:230–238.
3. Fink DF, Smith RJ. The duration of or th-
odontic treatment. Am J Or thod Dentofa-
cial Orthop 1992;102:45–51.
4. White LW. Editor’s corner: Biding our
time. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:281–282.
5. Hickory W. Patients will pay more for less.
Praxis excellence in orthodontic manage-
ment. 2004;2:2–6.
6. Shia G. Treatment overruns. J Clin Orthod
1986;20:602–604.
7. Keim R, Gottlieb E, Nelson A, Vogels D.
JCO orthodontic practice study. Part 4.
Additional breakdowns. J Clin Orthod
2005;40:95–102.
8. Klein A. Informed consent: A practical
approach. Risk Management Report
198 8 ;1:13.
9. Cunningham S, Hunt N, Feinmann C.
Perceptions of outcome following orthog-
nathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg
1996;34:210 213.
10. Corrigan J, Donaldson M, Kohn L. Cross-
ing the quality chasm: A new health
system for the 21st century. Washington,
DC: The Institute of Medicine, 2001.
11. Warren J. A medico-legal review of some
current UK guidelines in or thodontics: A
personal view. J Orthod 1999;26:307.
12. Segal G, Schiffman P, Tuncay O. Meta
analysis of the treatment-related factors
of external apical root resorption. Orthod
Craniofac Res 2004;7:71–78.
13. Fox N. Longer orthodontic treatment
may result in greater external apical root
resorption. Evid Based Dent 2005;6:21.
14. Graber T, Eliades T, Athanasiou A. Risk
Management in Orthodontics: Experts’
Guide to Malpractice: Chicago: Quintes-
sence, 2004.
15. Clark J, Gebbie J. Increasing Practice Ef-
ciency and Protability Using In-Ovation®
Self-Ligating Brackets. http://www.gacintl.
com/UserFiles/File/literature/ WP_Clark1.
pdf. Dentsply GAC, 2007.
16. Phipps G. Seven keys to on-time nishing.
J Clin Orthod 2004;38:155–158.
17. Beckwith FR, Ackerman RJ, Cobb CM, Tira
DE. An evaluation of factors affecting dura-
tion of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:439–447.
18. Robb SI, Sadowsky C, Schneider BJ,
BeGole EA. Effectiveness and duration
of orthodontic treatment in adults and
adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1998;114:383–386.
19. Sameshima G. Ask us. Some or thodontists
claim they can complete treatment rela-
tively quickly, and they rarely treat patients
as long as 3 years. How can they do this
and still achieve high-quality results? Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:526.
20. Turbill EA, Richmond S, Wright JL. The
time-factor in orthodontics: What inuenc-
es the duration of treatments in National
Health Service practices? Community
Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:62–72.
21. Mahmoud KA-O, Elham Saleh Abu A.
Factors affecting patient satisfaction after
orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod
20 0 6;76:422– 431.
22. Sachdeva R, Feinberg MP. Reframing clini-
cal patient management with SureSmile
technology. PSCO NewsWire 2009;2:2–24.
23. Sachdeva RC. SureSmile technology in a
patient-centered orthodontic practice.
J Clin Orthod 2001;35:245–253.
24. Sachdeva RC. SureSmile’s promise:
Digital care solutions for the orthodontic
industry. http:// orthocj.com/2001/06/
digital-care-solutions-for-the-orthodontic-
industry. TheOrthodontic CYBERJournal,
20 01.
25. Sachdeva RC, Fruge JF, Fruge AM, et al.
SureSmile: A report of clinical ndings.
J Clin Orthod 2005;39:297–314.
26. Mah J, Sachdeva R. Computer-assisted
orthodontic treatment: The SureSmile
process. Am J Or thod Dentofacial Orthop
2001;120:85–87.
27. Snyder WC. Or thodontics: The changing
face of or thodontics. Minnesota Edition:
Doctor of Dentistry: A Business and Life-
style Magazine for Dentists 20 07;4:8–13.
28. Lohse J. Redening orthodontic care with
SureSmile. Shared learnings from high
performance practices. Peer2Peer 2007;
1.1:3–11.
29. Moles RC. Transforming to an all-digital
practice with SureSmile. Shared learnings
from high performance practices. Peer-
2Pe er 2007;1.2:3 –11.
30. Whitlock B. SureSmile in a technology-
driven practice. Shared learnings from
high performance practices. Peer2Peer
20 07;1.3:3 –11.
31. Moles R. The SureSmile system in orth-
odontic practice. J Clin Orthod 2009;43:
161–174.
32. Cohen MJR. Taking adult orthodontia to a
new level. Indiana Edition: Doctor of Den-
tistry: A Business and Lifestyle Magazine
for Dentists 2007;2:1–6.
33. Sachdeva R. Integrating digital and
robotic technologies. In: Graber T (ed).
Diagnosis, Treatment Planning, and Ther-
apeutics. Orthodontic Current Principles
and Techniques, ed 5. St Louis: Elsevier,
20 11.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Treatment time: SureSmile vs conventional
84 ORTHODONTICS e Ar n Pace  Dntocia Enancemen
Sientic
Iovati 34. Saxe AK, Louie LJ, Mah J. Efciency and
effec tiveness of SureSmile. World J Or-
thod 2010;11:16–22.
35. Alford TJ, Roberts WE, Hartseld Jr JK,
Eckert GJ, Snyder RJ. Clinical outcomes
for patients nished with the SureSmile
method compared with conventional
xed orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod
2011;81:383–388.
36. Wenger R, Douangpanya S, Vig K, Beck
M, Vig P. Classes I II and III differences
in severity, duration, and orthodontic
results. J Dent Res 1996;75:437.
37. Vig K, Weyant R, Vayda D, O’Brien K, Ben-
nett E. Orthodontic process and outcome:
Efcacy studies—strategies for develop-
ing process and outcome measures: A
new era in orthodontics. Clin Orthod Res
1998 ;1:147–155 .
38. Popowich K, Flores-Mir C, Nebbe B, Heo
G, Major PW. Comparison of Class I and
Class II treatment duration among three
different orthodontic practices. Semin
Orthod 2006;12:52–59.
39. Campbell CL, Roberts WE, Hartseld JK,
Qi R. Treatment outcomes in a gradu-
ate orthodontic clinic for cases dened
by the American Board of Or thodontics
malocclusion categories. Am J Or thod
Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:822–829.
40. O’Brien KD, Robbins R, Vig KWL, Vig PS,
Shnorhokian H, Weyant R. The ef fective-
ness of Class II, Division 1 treatment. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:
329–334.
41. Janson G, Maria FRT, Barros SEC, Freitas
MRd, Henriques JFC. Orthodontic treat-
ment time in 2- and 4-premolar-extraction
protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2006;129(5):666–671.
42. Janson G, Barros SEC, Freitas MRd, Hen-
riques JFC, Pinzan A. Class II treatment
efciency in maxillary premolar extraction
and nonextrac tion protocols. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:490–498.
43. Cassinelli AG, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Vig
KWL. Factors associated with orthodon-
tists’ assessment of difculty. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:497–502.
44. Alger DW. Appointment frequency versus
treatment time. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1988;94:436– 439.
45. Vig PS, Orth D, Weintraub JA, Brown C,
Kowalski C J. The duration of orthodontic
treatment with and without extractions:
A pilot study of ve selected practices.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:
45 51.
46. Luther F, Morris DO, Karnezi K. Or th-
odontic treatment following orthognathic
surger y: how long does it take and why?
A retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2007;65:1969–1976.
47. Hall B, Jamsa T, Soukka T, Peltomaki T. Du-
ration of surgical-orthodontic treatment.
Acta Odont Scand 2008;66:274–277.
48. von Bremen J, Pancherz H. Efciency of
early and late Class II Division 1 treat-
ment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or thop
2 0 0 2;1 21 : 31 – 37.
49. Hsieh TJ, Pinskaya Y, Roberts WE. Assess-
ment of orthodontic treatment outcomes:
Early treatment versus late treatment.
Angle Or thod 2005;75:162–170.
50. Breuning KH, Peter JVS, Birte P-A, Tuinz-
ing DB. Duration of or thodontic treatment
and mandibular lengthening by means
of distraction or bilateral sagittal split
osteotomy in patients with Angle Class II
malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Or thop 2 0 0 5;127:2 5 2 9.
51. Amditis C, Smith LF. The duration of xed
orthodontic treatment: A comparison
of two groups of patients treated using
Edgewise brackets with 0.018” and 0.022”
slots. Aust Or thod J 2000;16:34–39.
52. Eberting J, Straja S, Tuncay O. Treatment
time, outcome, and patient satisfaction
comparisons of Damon and conventional
brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:228–234.
53. Tagawa D. From good to great: The Da-
mon system vs conventional appliances: A
comparative study. Clin Imp 2006;15:4.
54. Clark J, Gebbie J. Increasing practice ef-
ciency and protability using In-Ovation
self-ligating Brackets. http://www.gacintl.
com. Dentsply GAC, 2007.
55. Mascarenhas A, Vig K. Comparison of
orthodontic treatment outcomes in edu-
cational and private practice settings.
J Dent Educ 2002;66:94–99.
56. Christy QV, Roberts WE, James KH, Susan
O. Treatment complexity index for assess-
ing the relationship of treatment duration
and outcomes in a graduate or thodontics
clinic. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
20 0 8 ;13 3:9.e1–9. e13.
57. Popowich K, Nebbe B, Heo G, Glover KE,
Major PW. Predictors for Class II treat-
ment duration. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2005;127:293–300.
58. Callaway C. An investigation relat-
ing treatment duration to qualities of
orthodontic care [thesis]. College Station,
Texas: Texas A&M University, 1999.
59. Dyer GS, Harris EF, Vaden JL. Age effec ts
on orthodontic treatment: Adolescents
contrasted with adults. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:523–530.
60. Bouwens DG, Cevidanes L, Ludlow JB,
Phillips C. Comparison of mesiodistal root
angulation with posttreatment panoramic
radiographs and cone-beam computed
tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Or thop 2 011;139:12 6 –132.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Volume 13, 2012
Sachdeva et al
85
Sientic
Iovati
61. Okumura H, Chen LH, Tsutsumi S, Oka
M. Three-dimensional virtual imaging
of facial skeleton and dental morpho-
logic condition for treatment planning
in orthognathic surgery. Am J Or thod
Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:126–131.
62. Kattan MW, Zelefsky MJ, Kupelian PA,
Scardino PT, Fuks Z, Leibel SA. Pretreat-
ment nomogram for predicting the
outcome of three-dimensional conformal
radiotherapy in prostate cancer. J Clin
Oncol 2000;18:3352–3359.
63. Gaba DM, Howard SK, Fish KJ, Smith BE,
Sowb YA. Simulation-based training in
anesthesia crisis resource management
(ACRM): A decade of experience. Simula-
tion & Gaming 2001;32:175–193.
64. Almog D, Sanchez M. The effect of es-
thetic consultation methods on accep-
tance of diastema-closure treatment plan:
A pilot study. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;
135: 875 881.
65. Morisky DE, Malotte CK, Choi P, et al. A
patient education program to improve
adherence rates with antituberculosis drug
regimens. Health Educ Q 1990;17:253–267.
66. Gaba DM. The future vision of simula-
tion in health care. Qual Saf Health Care
2004;13(suppl 1):i2–i10.
67. Wolf f AM, Taylor SA, McCabe JF. Using
checklists and reminders in clinical path-
ways to improve hospital inpatient care.
Med J Aust 2004;181:428–431.
68. Hales BM, Pronovost PJ. The checklist—A
tool for error management and perfor-
mance improvement. Journal of critical
care 2006;21(3):231–235.
69. Matasa CG. Bracket angulation as a
function of its length in the canine distal
movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Or t h o p 1996 ;110:178 18 4 .
70. Raphael E, Sandrik JL, Klapper L. Rotation
of rectangular wire in rectangular molar
tubes: Par t I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Or thop 1981;80:13 6 –144 .
71. Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP.
Disrupted routines: Team learning and
new technology implementation in hos-
pitals. Administrative Science Quarterly
20 01:6 85–716.
72. Edmondson AC, Winslow AB, Bohmer
RMJ, Pisano GP. Learning how and learn-
ing what: Effec ts of tacit and codied
knowledge on performance improvement
following technology adoption. Decision
Sciences 2003;34:197–224.
73. Pisano GP, Bohmer RMJ, Edmondson
AC. Organizational differences in rates of
learning: Evidence from the adoption of
minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Man-
agement Science 2001:752–768.
74. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace S, Gareth-
waite P, Monk AF, Russell IT. Assessment of
the learning curve in health technologies.
International journal of technology assess-
ment in health care 20 00;16:1095–1108.
© 2012 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART OF MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
... With these tools, orthodontic treatment may become safer, more efficient, and more effective. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The orthodontics office is moving toward a digital workflow with intraoral scans, digital tooth set-ups, 3D printers, and CAD/CAM appliances. In some studies, CAD/CAM appliances reduce treatment times and enhance patient experiences with equivalent or improved outcomes. ...
... In some studies, CAD/CAM appliances reduce treatment times and enhance patient experiences with equivalent or improved outcomes. 3,4,7,9,12 Lengthy treatment times are detrimental to patient compliance and dental health, because longer appliance wear is associated with increased external apical root resorption and white spot lesions. 5,6,8,10,11 Patients and orthodontists prefer shorter treatment times and are willing to pay up to 20% more to shorten duration. ...
... Suresmile's custom finishing wires reduce treatment time and improve outcomes, but published studies are nonrandomized, retrospective, and with small or poorly standardized samples. 3,7,9 Data in support of Insignia's CAD/CAM brackets and wires are even less clear cut. Two retrospective investigations indicate that Insignia reduces total treatment time while delivering results similar to conventional systems. ...
Article
Introduction Orthodontics is evolving with advances in 3D imaging, additive fabrication, digital scanning, and treatment planning. With digital tools, orthodontic treatment may become more predictable, efficient, and effective while reducing side-effects. These technologies are affecting patient care, but knowledge of their adoption patterns and influence is incomplete. We aimed to identify adoption decision makers, information sources, perspectives, incentives, and barriers. Methods Twenty-four privately practicing orthodontists were interviewed in a semistructured format following a topic guide. Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify factors in technology adoption and its perceived influence on practice. Thematic patterns were established through iterative systematic analysis, and qualitative validity was ensured with researcher triangulation. Results Qualitative interviews revealed that orthodontists make purchasing decisions independently from staff, after consulting other dentists and company representatives. Meetings, residency training, and continuing education courses are influential information sources, whereas research literature is not. Early and middle adopters are integrating digital imaging, planning, and fabrication technologies into practice and view enhanced ease of use, capabilities, performance, and procedural efficiency as primary incentives to adoption. Improving outcomes and patient comfort are not frequently cited as incentives, and all interviewees view cost as the largest barrier. Orthodontists positively perceive the influence of technology on their practices, but are concerned that further innovation and direct-to-consumer products will cause loss of market share. Conclusions CAD/CAM appliances, 3D imaging, and digital treatment planning are viewed as future standards of care and are increasingly being incorporated into the orthodontic office. Understanding the technology adoption process can guide innovation to improve treatment and ease the transition into a digital workflow.
... No significant variation was observed in pain between these approaches as well as significant reduction in treatment duration. 7,8,14,15 Despite those advantages, treatment cost increment is a key issue considered when using this technique. 5,6,8,14 Many studies on accelerated orthodontic tooth movement focused on surgical techniques, such as corticotomy and piezocision. ...
Article
Full-text available
To evaluate the preference of young adult patients and their willingness to pay for the different approaches accessible to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from September to December 2019. Young adult orthodontic patients from 18 to 45 years old were interviewed via online survey regarding their perception to the extent of treatment, acceptability of non-invasive (customized appliances and medications) and invasive (surgery) approaches accessible to accelerate orthodontic treatment and increase in fees they were willing to pay. Statistical analyses were performed, and gender difference was calculated at P < .05. There are 100 respondents: 70% aged between 18 to 25, 50% male, and 56% with annual income <10 000 SR. About 72% of the respondents decided that treatment takes longer period and 51% wished it would last for less than 6 months. Customized appliances were reported to be the most convenient to use (58%) and to pay (44%), followed by medications (48%). On the other hand, surgery was reported to be the most inconvenient to use (58%) and to pay for (55%). About 70% of the respondents were unwilling to pay more than 10% to 20% for all procedures assessed; considerable variation was not observed in responses between gender at 95% confidence level. Majority of the respondents believed that orthodontic treatment is taking lengthy duration. Less invasive, nonsurgical techniques and procedures were more preferred. Likewise, financial factors play vital role in the selection of their preferred approach. Most of them agrees to provide up to 20% increment of the fee for additional procedures.
... Various studies have proven the effectiveness of customized wires as reduction in treatment duration was seen on using these archwires. However, studies have also shown that treatment results in terms of mesio-distal tooth movement were fine but less accurate in relation to tip and torque [40]. ...
... One study [29] was excluded post hoc, since it included only one adult patient, which made statistical comparisons between adolescents and adults patients difficult. Eventually, 11 papers pertaining to 11 unique studies (1 prospective and 10 retrospective non-randomized studies), which were published as journal papers, were finally included (Table 1) [1,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: Adults with fixed orthodontic appliances are increasing nowadays. Compared with adolescents, adults present biological differences that might influence treatment duration. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents. Materials and methods: Eight databases were searched up to September 2019 for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies comparing treatment duration with fixed appliances in adolescents and adult patients. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE. Results: A total of 11 unique studies (one prospective and 10 retrospective non-randomized) with 2969 adolescents and 1380 adult patients were finally included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies found no significant difference in the duration of comprehensive treatment with fixed appliances (MD = - 0.8 month; 95% CI = - 4.2 to 2.6 months; P = 0.65; I2 = 92%) between adults and adolescents. Similarly, both distalization of upper first molars with skeletal anchorage for class II correction and the retraction of canines into the premolar extraction spaces lasted similarly long among adults and adolescents. On the other hand, alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted considerably longer in adults compared to adolescents (1 study; MD = 3.8 months; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.2 months; P = 0.002). The quality of evidence for the meta-analysis was low due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies with considerable risk of bias. Conclusions: While existing evidence does not indicate a difference in the overall duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents, the alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted significantly longer in adults. However, our confidence in these estimates is low due to the risk of bias in the included studies. Trial registration: PROSPERO: ( CRD42019148169 ).
... 8 Mechanical stimulation by customized wires designed and manufactured according to the desired movement and the formulated treatment plan was also reported to reduce the treatment time significantly. 6,10,11 Despite the non-invasiveness of these mechanical techniques, the increase in treatment costs has been considered an issue. 4,6,7,9,10 Procedures reported to have biological effects included: one-time surgical procedures and drug injections. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: To evaluate patients' perceptions regarding orthodontic treatment duration, cost, and willingness to undergo different procedures and techniques available to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement in Saudi Arabia. Patients and methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Saudi Arabia from January to March 2019. Patients from multiple centers were electronically surveyed regarding their perception of orthodontic treatment duration, acceptance of appliances and techniques available to shorten the duration of orthodontic treatment, and how much increase in fees they were willing to pay for those appliances and techniques. Descriptive and group comparison statistics were conducted, and the significance level was set at p<0.05. Results: The response rate was 200/400 (50%): 50.5% were (>18-25 years old), 67.5% female, 80% Saudi, 67.5% self-pay and 52% with annual income <10,000 SR. A total of 83% of the participants agree that orthodontic treatment takes too long, and 55.5% wish it takes less than 6 months. The preferences for additional procedures were ranked in the following order: customized wires ranked 1 by 52.5%, followed by FDA (Food & Drug Administration) approved teeth vibrators by 40.5%, FDA approved drug injections by 33.5%, piezocision by 32.5%, and corticotomies by 46% of the participants. No significant differences in ranking between the groups according to age and annual income (p>0.05). 47.5% of the participants were able to pay for additional procedures. An increase in treatment fees was reported for up to (30-40%) for FDA approved teeth vibrators by 59% of the participants, followed by FDA approved drug injections by 33% of the participants. A significant difference in responses between the groups was reported according to gender and annual income (p<0.05). Conclusion: Most of the patients strongly agreed that orthodontics treatment takes too long. The highest percentages of patients perceived customized wires as the most acceptable technique to undergo to shorten orthodontic treatment duration, followed by teeth vibrators.
Article
Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to determine whether a correlation exists between the fractal dimension value and overall orthodontic treatment duration in children and young adults. Methods: The study included a total of 643 patients (age: 10-25 years) who received orthodontic treatment between January 2015 and March 2020. Patient records and pretreatment panoramic radiographs were evaluated. The regions of interest selected for calculating fractal dimension were the bilateral mental foramen regions of the mandible. Fractal dimension was set in relation to orthodontic treatment duration using a linear regression model which was also adjusted for potential confounding variables. Total treatment duration was the outcome variable of interest used as a continuous variable. The predictor variables of interest included age, gender, type of dental and skeletal malocclusion, vertical growth pattern, extraction type, and fractal dimension. Results: The mean age, treatment duration, and fractal dimension were 14.56 years, 27.01 months, and 1.23 mm, respectively. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the fractal dimension had a significant influence on overall treatment duration (P < 0.001). From the other variables, Angle class II malocclusion significantly influenced treatment duration (P < 0.01), age showed a significant negative correlation with treatment duration (P < 0.01), and treatment duration significantly increased for patients with tooth extractions (P < 0.001). Conclusion: There was a negative correlation between fractal dimensions at the mandibular mental region and total orthodontic treatment duration. Fractal dimension analysis may help to understand physiologic features of alveolar bone and predict orthodontic tooth movement.
Article
Introduction Digital scanning, treatment planning, 3-dimensional imaging, and printing are changing the practice of orthodontics. These tools are adopted with the hope that treatment becomes more predictable, efficient, and effective while reducing adverse outcomes. Digital tools are impacting care, but knowledge of nationwide adoption trends and motivators is incomplete. Methods We aimed to identify adoption decision-makers, information sources, incentives, and barriers through the first nationwide survey of American Association of Orthodontics members on their technology adoption habits, needs, and outcomes. Data were assessed using descriptive and bivariate analyses. The survey was developed from a comprehensive qualitative interview phase as part of a mixed methodology study. Results Responses (n = 343) revealed orthodontists make adoption decisions on the basis of advice from other dentists and company representatives while rarely consulting staff or research literature. Continuing education and meetings are most effective at disseminating information to practicing doctors, whereas journals generate less impact. Key adoption incentives include added capabilities, practice efficiency, ease of implementation, and performance, whereas cost is the main barrier to purchase. Early adopters with larger practices charge higher fees than other adopters to support the costs of technologies. Treatment outcome is not a primary adoption incentive for specific technologies. Conclusions Orthodontists positively perceive the influence of intraoral scanning, cone-beam computed tomography imaging, 3-dimensional printing, computer-aided design–computer-aided manufacturing archwires, and clear aligner therapy on their practice and patient care. The orthodontic technological transformation is underway, and knowledge of adoption can guide our transition into modern practice, in which digital tools are effective adjuncts to the specialists' expertise.
Article
Objectives To provide dental practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and transparent evidence-based overview of the characteristics of literature regarding initiatives of robot technology in dentistry. Data All articles in which robot technology in dentistry is described, except for non-scientific articles and articles containing secondary data (reviews). Amongst others, the following data were extracted: type of study, level of technological readiness, authors’ professional background and the subject of interaction with the robot. Sources Bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were surveyed. A reference search was conducted. The search timeline was between January 1985 and October 2020. Study selection A total of 911 articles were screened on title and abstract of which 161 deemed eligible for inclusion. Another 71 articles were excluded mainly because of unavailability of full texts or the sole use of secondary data (reviews). Four articles were included after hand searching the reference lists. In total, 94 articles were included for analysis. Conclusions Since 2013 an average of six articles per year concern robot initiatives in dentistry, mostly originating from East Asia (57%). The vast majority of research was categorized as either basic theoretical or basic applied research (80%). Technology readiness levels did not reach higher than three (proof of concept) in 55% of all articles. In 84%, the first author of the included articles had a technical background and in 36%, none of the authors had a dental or medical background. The overall quality of literature, especially in terms of clinical validation, should be considered as low.
Article
Objectives To provide dental practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and transparent evidence-based overview of physical robot initiatives in all fields of dentistry. Data Articles published since 1985 concerning primary data on physical robot technology in dentistry were selected. Characteristics of the papers were extracted such as the respective field of dentistry, year of publication as well as a description of its usage. Sources Bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. A hand search through reference lists of all included articles was performed. Study selection The search timeline was between January 1985 and October 2020. All types of scientific literature in all languages were included concerning fields of dentistry ranging from student training to implantology. Robot technology solely for the purpose of research and maxillofacial surgery were excluded. In total, 94 articles were included in this systematic review. Conclusions This study provides a systematic overview of initiatives using robot technology in dentistry since its very beginning. While there were many interesting robot initiatives reported, the overall quality of the literature, in terms of clinical validation, is low. Scientific evidence regarding the benefits, results and cost-efficiency of commercially available robotic solutions in dentistry is lacking. The rise in availability of open source control systems, compliant robot systems and the design of dentistry-specific robot technology might facilitate the process of technological development in the near future. The authors are confident that robotics will provide useful solutions in the future but, strongly, encourage an evidence-based approach when adapting to new (robot) technology.
Chapter
Successful treatment of a patient’s presenting malocclusion requires proper diagnosis, sound treatment planning principles, and correct biomechanical design. Conventional dental casts and two-dimensional radiographs offer limited possibilities to test different treatment approaches and even less possibilities of assessing the movement of each tooth in the three planes of space. Advances in three-dimensional technology has allowed for the implementation of digital diagnostic software into specialty practice to better plan treatment, predict treatment responses, and monitor treatment progress, in all three dimensions of space. Through segmentation of the dentition and with appropriate simulation software, the malocclusion can be virtually corrected, different treatment options tested, and a sound biomechanical treatment plan designed. This chapter presents several key functions of digital diagnostic procedures that are available to orthodontists who want to utilize digital technology in their practices. Advantages of using digital technology in the planning and implementation of orthodontic treatment are also presented. Four clinical cases are described to illustrate the benefits of using of three-dimensional digital planning for the diagnosis, decision-making process, and treatment of orthodontic patients.
Article
Full-text available
This paper reports on a qualitative field study of 16 hospitals implementing an innovative technology for cardiac surgery. We examine how new routines are developed in organizations in which existing routines are reinforced by the technological and organizational context All hospitals studied had top-tier cardiac surgery departments with excellent reputations and patient outcomes yet exhibited striking differences in the extent to which they were able to implement a new technology that required substantial changes in the operating-room-team work routine. Successful implementers underwent a qualitatively different team learning process than those who were unsuccessful. Analysis of qualitative data suggests that implementation involved four process steps: enrollment, preparation, trials, and reflection. Successful implementers used enrollment to motivate the team, designed preparatory practice sessions and early trials to create psychological safety and encourage new behaviors, and promoted shared meaning and process improvement through reflective practices. By illuminating the collective learning process among those directly responsible for technology implementation, we contribute to organizational research on routines and technology adoption.
Article
Full-text available
Several gaps exist in the training of clinicians in health care domains, such as anesthesiology, that have the cognitive profile of complexity and dynamism. These features are shared with other industries such as com- mercial aviation. Training for cockpit crews on Crew Resource Management (CRM) emphasizes deci- sion-making and teamwork principles. The authors created a simulation-based curriculum (ACRM) for anesthesiology based on principles of CRM in aviation. The training philosophy adapted to health care is one of training single-discipline crews to work in teams. The ACRM curriculum involves highly realistic simulation scenarios requiring complex decision making and interaction with multiple personnel. Sce- narios are each followed by a detailed debriefing using videotapes of the simulation session. ACRM has been adopted at major health care institutions around the world. Special training for instructors is provided, especially concerning debriefing. The ACRM approach has been extended to a wide variety of other health care domains that involve complexity and dynamism, such as emergency and trauma medicine, intensive care, and cardiac arrest response teams. Simulation-based training based on CRM principles is expected to become routine in many health care settings in the coming decade.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: We reviewed and appraised the methods by which the issue of the learning curve has been addressed during health technology assessment in the past.
Article
Purpose: Several studies have defined risk groups for predicting the outcome after external-beam radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer. However, most models formed patient risk groups, and none of these models considers radiation dose as a predictor variable. The purpose of this study was to develop a nomogram to improve the accuracy of predicting outcome after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Materials and methods: This study was a retrospective, nonrandomized analysis of patients treated at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center between 1988 and 1998. Clinical parameters of the 1,042 patients included stage, biopsy Gleason score, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, whether neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was administered, and the radiation dose delivered. Biochemical (PSA) treatment failure was scored when three consecutive rises of serum PSA occurred. A nomogram, which predicts the probability of remaining free from biochemical recurrence for 5 years, was validated internally on this data set using a bootstrapping method and externally using a cohort of patients treated at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Results: When predicting outcomes for patients in the validation data set from the Cleveland Clinic, the nomogram had a Somers' D rank correlation between predicted and observed failure times of 0.52. Predictions from this nomogram were more accurate (P<.0001) than the best of seven published risk stratification systems, which achieved a Somers' D coefficient of 0.47. Conclusion: The development process illustrated here produced a nomogram that seems to predict more accurately than other available systems and may be useful for treatment selection by both physicians and patients.
Article
The difficulty of achieving an ideal or normal occlusion might lie in the pretreatment occlusion, patient-associated factors, and the treatment. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that were related to the treating orthodontist's posttreatment categorization of a case as difficult or easy. Ten orthodontists each identified 10 easy cases and 10 difficult cases that they had treated. The initial malocclusion was measured with the peer assessment rating (PAR) index and the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN). Patient and treatment information was obtained from the treatment records. Statistical analysis with parametric or nonparametric testing was performed. Difficult cases had greater severity and need before treatment and greater residual malocclusion and need after treatment. Difficult cases had more chart entries for problems with hygiene and compliance. They were more likely to have had extractions and changes in treatment plan. Difficult cases also required more appointments and a longer treatment duration. Three logistic regression models were developed based on malocclusion severity, patient characteristics, and treatment characteristics. The models support a correlation between greater pretreatment malocclusion severity, 1-phase treatment, and the designation as a difficult case. This study supports a model in which malocclusion severity and factors associated with the patient and the treatment contribute to an orthodontist's categorization of a case as easy or difficult.
Article
The purpose of this investigation was to assess the relative treatment time difference (months/appointments) between Class II Division 1 patients and Class I patients from 3 different orthodontic offices. In addition, we also compared the estimated treatment length with the actual treatment length to determine how accurate the orthodontists were in predicting treatment duration. A total sample of 237 patients representing 3 observational groups (Angle Class I nonextraction, and Class II Division I extraction and nonextraction) were selected from the active retention files of each office. Pretreatment ANB angle, pretreatment overjet, and the pre- and posttreatment PAR scores (weighted) were measured. The results of this investigation indicated that among the 3 orthodontic offices, Class II Division 1 cases took an average of 5 more months than Class I cases. There was no significant treatment time difference (months) between the Class II extraction and nonextraction groups. Class II treatments including Herbst therapy were significantly longer (around 8 months) than treatments including headgears. The treatment length in 4 of the 9 observational groups was significantly underestimated and our data demonstrated no association of pretreatment PAR scores and percentage PAR reduction with treatment duration.
Article
This study aimed to elucidate factors associated with duration of orthodontic treatment. Retrospective analysis of a systematic 2% sample of cases completed in National Health Service practices in England and Wales. Records were collected during 1991. Characteristics of practitioners, patients, malocclusions, treatment variables and outcomes were evaluated. Data were submitted to multivariate analysis, with Log10 Time in Treatment as the dependent variable. Data were available for 1506 cases. The (geometric) mean time in treatment was 13 months. A model was found that explained 41% of the variance. Factors found to increase duration were fixed appliances, multiple stages in the treatments, premolar extractions, and correction of antero-posterior buccal occlusion. Age, buccal segment malocclusion, DHC (Dental Health Component of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need) grade 5 and orthodontically qualified practitioners were also associated with slightly longer treatments. Whilst briefer treatments may be attractive to purchasers, providers and recipients, it should be remembered that thorough treatment, and treatment of more complex malocclusions, tends to take longer. Economic pressures on practitioners to produce high turnovers of cases may be counterproductive in the quest for better outcomes.
Article
Efficiency of treatment mechanics has been a major focus throughout the history of orthodontics. Self-ligating brackets were developed on the premise that elimination of ligature ties creates a friction-free environment and allows for better sliding mechanics. It is expected that the self-ligating bracket will reduce the treatment time. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of Damon self-ligating (SL) brackets to those brackets ligated with either steel ligatures or elastomeric ‘O’ rings. Not only treatment time and the number of appointments needed were addressed, but the quality of the treatment outcome was also assessed. American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) grading criteria for models and panoramic radiographs were employed. Additionally, a nine-question survey was sent to the 215-patients in this study (108 Damon, 107 conventionally-ligated) to elicit their perceptions of how their orthodontic treatment progressed and finished. The results showed that patients treated with Damon SL brackets had significantly lower treatment times, required significantly fewer appointments, and had significantly higher ABO scores than those treated with conventionally-ligated edgewise brackets. There were no significant differences in Damon or non-Damon ABO scores with respect to gender. Damon patients over the age of 21 had significantly higher ABO scores. Conversely, the non-Damon patients under the age of 21 had significantly higher ABO scores. For pre-treatment Angle classification, no significant differences were noted. Patient responses showed that Damon patients perceived their treatment time as being shorter than expected. It appears that faster orthodontic treatment can be better as measured by the ABO criteria.