By Andrew Adam Newman New York Times
Once as closely associated with adolescence as algebra, orthodontists have in recent years treated growing numbers of adults. From 1994 to 2010, the number of Americans 18 and older getting braces or some other teeth-straightening treatment from an orthodontist has jumped 58 percent, to 1.1 million from 680,000 annually, according to the American Association of Orthodontists. Over the same period, the number of patients under 18 increased at a slower pace of 15 percent. In 2010, adults accounted for 22 percent of patients, up from 17 percent in 1994. Now orthodontists are introducing what they say is a first — a national advertising campaign pitched primarily to prospective adult patients. New commercials from the association show adults almost exclusively. Actors with enviable smiles beam in the ads, with one woman saying her straighter teeth gave her self-confidence, another saying she likes flashing her pearly whites on dates and a man in his 30s saying, “It’s never too late.” The only two children in three spots are portrayed with parents. In one, the father of a boy says, “So then he said to me, ‘What about you, Dad?’ ”
Read article – snuck in the one below hoping an orthodude in the audience will comment on the impact Invisalign is having on the discipline….
Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system
American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 128, Issue 3 , Pages 292-298, September 2005
Introduction: This treatment-outcome assessment objectively compares Invisalign (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) treatment with braces. Methods: This study, a retrospective cohort analysis, was conducted in New York, NY, in 2004. Records from 2 groups of 48 patients (Invisalign and braces groups) were evaluated by using methods from the American Board of Orthodontics Phase III examination. The discrepancy index was used to analyze pretreatment records to control for initial severity of malocclusion. The objective grading system (OGS) was used to systematically grade posttreatment records. Statistical analyses evaluated treatment outcome, duration, and strengths and weaknesses of Invisalign compared with braces. Results: The Invisalign group lost 13 OGS points more than the braces group on average, and the OGS passing rate for Invisalign was 27% lower than that for braces. Invisalign scores were consistently lower than braces scores for buccolingual inclination, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and overjet. Invisalign’s OGS scores were negatively correlated to initial overjet, occlusion, and buccal posterior crossibite. Invisalign patients finished 4 months sooner than those with fixed appliances on average. P < .05 was used to determine statistically significant differences. Conclusions: According to the OGS, Invisalign did not treat malocclusions as well as braces in this sample. Invisalign was especially deficient in its ability to correct large anteroposterior discrepancies and occlusal contacts. The strengths of Invisalign were its ability to close spaces and correct anterior rotations and marginal ridge heights. This study might help clinicians to determine which patients are best suited for Invisalign treatment.
