Author Topic: special method with fixed braces  (Read 6480 times)

Offline picture-imp

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
special method with fixed braces
« on: 28. February 2007, 02:17:38 AM »
Has anybody here had experiences with the SureSmile® technology ( for fixed braces? With this method, the archwires are designed in the computer by the orthodontist and then shaped by robots. According to the manufacturer, this procedure shortens the treatment time. Anyway, it sounds quite promising what is written on the SureSmile® internet page:

"SureSmile has been shown to straighten teeth in 40% less time than conventional orthodontics. For example, treatments estimated to take two years with traditional orthodontics may take only 12 to 15 months using SureSmile. A number of factors can affect treatment time and your actual length of treatment may vary.

The pain patients experience during orthodontic treatment is a result of changes in pressure caused by adjusting wires. Patients who use SureSmile treatment experience less pain, because fewer wire adjustments and changes are required.

SureSmile archwires don't move teeth any faster than conventional archwires. (In fact, the same materials are used for conventional archwires.) The time difference is due to the computerized treatment plan, made possible through 3-D imaging. Instead of a continually evolving plan with frequent adjustments, your teeth move along a more direct path to their target positions. Your overall treatment is shorter due to the shorter distance the teeth have to travel."

Here is a promotional video:
This video here is a little more informative:

On company homepages, however, everything always sounds great. That's why I'd like to know if anyone here has already had personal experiences with it.


  • Guest
Re: special method with fixed braces
« Reply #1 on: 25. January 2011, 14:50:07 PM »
There should be proper fixture of braces, otherwise our teeth can lead to in different direction, which we are not expecting at least. A good dentist may suggest a good treatment in this case.
* deleted rule 1.04 *