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.
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.