From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dentistry (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Antitrust lawsuit[edit]

Not remotely in my field of interest, but the antitrust litigation ought to be mentioned in the history. See [1], [2] Tearlach 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


It seems that a lot of information was present, but none of it was refenced. I'm guessing the anonymous ip address that keeps working on this page is an employee of Align Tech, Inc and they know these things, but they still must be cited.

Also the less we can make it read like the brochure you pick up in the dentist's office the better. Jonnyct 00:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jonnyct...I'm sure the info is true, but can we make this sound less like an advertisement? "Some treatements as low as..." and things such as that. lemboy4 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference to a good review of the actual evidence about this system. Hopefully this will make the article sound less like an ad and not be taken away by the employees of the company --Vannin 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


If there is an "Advantages" section, then a disadvantages section should be added to avoid the appearance of a commercial for Invisalign. Just my opinion. Wilsonbond 17:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is so little discussion on the discussion pages, when some rather important edits are being made. I noticed that a section on sensitivities had been removed. I put this back in, because it seems rather important information. If there is a reason for taking this out, then I suggest that we discuss it here. --Vannin 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Hello Phumber, thank-you for your recent contributions. In Wikipedia it is really important that statements be backed up by references. Can you add supporting references for your contributions? It is really important in this article because there is a risk that it will all sound like an advert and it really has to be neutral. Thanks, and you may want to discuss big additions on the talk page first.--Vannin (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC) P Humber and myself would love to carry out clinical trials for Align Tech, but without funding it is difficult to maintain a practice as well as a research facility. I have been doing Invisalign full time for about 6 years and have found only small problems with Invisalign: Rotations, patient compliance, Interproximal reduction etc. No system is perfect; look at metal braces...pain, extractions, gum problems, social stigma and relapse. In my experience I have used Invisalign for all types of maolocclusions, including anterior open bites with 12mm overjets etc. canine rotations are difficult, but with the new attachments it should work better. Patients need to decide on painful metal braces or painless Invisalign. The biggest disadvantage of Invisalign is the cowboy dentist...who carries out gross interproximal reduction between crowded front teeth and damages the teeth forever. This is probably the same problem with 6 month smiles. All orthodontic treatments should either involve extractions or movement of the posterior segments. Hence Invisalign is not a quick fix as some dentists think. Dr Raj Kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Raj Kumar (talkcontribs) 10:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


I notice that the UK price has been changed. Does anyone have a reference for this? Dentists in the UK seem to be giving a range of 3000 to 6000 pounds [[3]] so I'm wondering if the fee from invisalign should be 2800 pounds rather than dollars and whether there is any support for this?--Vannin (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well in London they currently cost £2000-3000 pounds. E.g. I got them for £2000 from Holborn Dental Practice. I guess the price has come down recently. Someone should probably updat the page to reflect this (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Anterior crowding is usually due to posterior narrowing of the arch. There is rarely space to move the front teeth back to where they should be. So straightening the teeth should involve moving the back teeth if required. The cost of full Invisalign is over 1500 pounds for the dentist, so when a patient receives Invisalign for only 2000 pounds then the chances are that the patient is receiving Invisalign anterior/express etc. The retainers are probably not from Invisalign as they cost over 200 pounds. So it makes me wonder what is the patient getting? In USA Invisalign Anterior and express have been taken off the market. Invisalign full/complete is the way to go. If a dentist is so comfortable with stripping the crowded front teeththen ask them to explain how he/she will be able to create a straight cut between overlaping lower incisors. It is very difficult and usually leads to the loss of the corner of the tooth. I have been charging 3000-4000 pounds for over 6 years and that is all inclusive of full arch Invisalign, minimal interproximal stripping/ no stripping, 3 refinements and now 3 sets of retainers. Private orthodontics should encompass the whole mouth and normally takes about 12-15 months to treat. Only very mild cases will fall in the 2000 bracket, but patients are probably getting their front teeth stripped unnescassarily to create space. I have never had complaints from patients that i have stripped down their teeth. Dr Raj KumarDoctor Raj Kumar (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

time frame[edit]

I've removed the statement about a known time frame - this is contradicted by information from the invisalign review, [[4]] which states that only an estimate can be given as there are too many unknowns.--Vannin (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


In the article it is stated that although the braces are advertised as invisible, they are in fact not. I must disagree with that. I currently have braces for both arches, and I swear that nobody has been able to tell that I actually have them 24/7. Plus, if the claim of invisibility was factually untrue that would make the company vulnerable to false claims lawsuits. I do not want to start an edit war by correcting that, but I just wanted to point that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

These aligners are not invisible. The look like transparent, custom-fit mouthguards. Then there's the "buttons" that may be needed. They are a ceramic buldge that is put on the face of a tooth to help the aligners grab the tooth. You could have few to many buttons per aligner. For instance, my upper aligner has only one button, but my lower aligner has six butttons. The buttons are easily noticable.-- (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

randomized studies[edit]

I took out the statement about the rarity of controlled studies - as we now have two --Vannin (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Articles about products are particularly vulnerable to being deleted because they are not notable and are simply advertising. The advertising issue has been raised several times on this talk page. We have to be careful not to be totally over the top with biased presentations about this product and it is really important to stay neutral.--Vannin (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) In my experience it is not about advertising. It is about choice. If a dentist can truly say that Invisalign can help many patients with a nearly invisible, removable system, then so be it. We can all get bogged down with what is the best. Porche or Ferrari? The word has to get out that there are some very experienced dentists out there that can orthdontially correct your smile without the pain of metal braces. It is always difficult to comment on a new product, so that is why after 6 years of use I can gladly say Invisalign works. Dr Raj KumarDoctor Raj Kumar (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Advertising copy.[edit]

Again it looks as if someone has been through and tried to put advertising copy into the article. If the system is good it will stand on its own two feet and not need the big PR job. I've taken some of it out. I repeat that if it sounds too much like advertising there is a good chance that the article could be nominated for deletion. I see that an entire section has had no sources to it since August 2006, and really looks like it was put in by employees of the company. I will give it another week and then take that section out. --Vannin (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

done--Vannin (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax deductibility[edit]

Medical expenses are only tax deductible if they are not cosmetic, though essentials for "normal" appearances, such as false teeth are allowed. All of these expenses are subject to a 7.5% AGI hurdle, so it's quite a much different case than mortgage interest expense deductibility, for example, and fairly misleading to say that these expenses are "deductible" in the same sense. For that reason I've struck the relevant line. fsiler (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


I have a conflict of interest with Invisalign in that I'll be working with Align Technology and their PR agency to help improve the article following COI best practices. My approach is Bright Line(ish), whereby I may fix citations, grammar and spacing, but I will propose important changes on Talk. I will generally use Request Edit and/or only make edits with unambiguous support from non-conflicted editors.

I am currently getting smart on the topic by reading some of the source material, but thought I would introduce myself here and see if there are any editors with an interest in the page that may be interested in collaborating on it later on. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 20:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Treatment process[edit]

I've helped prepare a Treatment process section intended to replace the current Treatment section at: User:CorporateM/Invisalign.

The proposed draft does not represent a radical change from the current text, but it has a stronger variety of sources, extensive copy-editing, a little more detail, and various corrections. The information about individual products (teen-line and express for example), I think will be better-placed in a different section, and some of the information in paragraph 2 I couldn't find in either of the sources. (I am not an expert, but I didn't think they used rubber bands). I didn't think the image of a blogger with her mouth open was really very informative, so I wanted to replace it with one of the 3D graphics of the patient's teeth that the sources talk a lot about.

Would appreciate any editor willing to spend some time to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Request edit[edit]

For long-term reference and archiving, I've moved the discussion from the Talk page of the draft to the collapsed section below. The content has been reviewed by Hordaland and user:Anthonyhcole. Per WP:COI, I'd like to request an impartial editor move the draft at user:CorporateM/Invisalign into article-space as a replacement of the current Treatment section. CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced the "Treatment" section with CM's "Treatment process".[5] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anthonyhcole! I was going to replace the image of the blogger with her mouth open with one of a 3D graphic of the patient's teeth in the software. A lot of the sources were talking about this specific graphic produced in the software and IMO the current image just looks the same way anybody does when they are in a dentist's chair. Is that ok or do you prefer the current image? CorporateM (Talk) 02:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
CorporateM: The 3D graphic would be much more relevant. The file name in your user space draft was File:Virtual teeth.png but it seems to be a dead link. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A non-sentence[edit]

I don't believe that the "sentence" below is a sentence. And if it were, it should be divided up for easier reading.

As with other forms of orthodontic treatments that incorporate a computerized plan with 3D imaging that allows the prospective patient to review the projected results, learn how long the treatment is likely to take, compare different plans, and make a more educated decision about whether or not to use Invisalign.

--Hordaland (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hordaland, I just found the exact same text on an orthodontist's website, which would seem to suggest it is copyrighted material. I am hesitant to provide a link to said website, as it would OUT the person that added the text as most likely being that orthodontist, but I think it is an easy delete/trim. (FYI, please note my COI disclosure above). CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


I've prepared a "History" and a "Background" section at user:CorporateM/Invisalign that I believe is neutral, well-sourced and an improvement to the page. History is usually one of the most important sections and is currently missing from the article entirely. Because I have a conflict of interest, I would like to defer the decision on whether it warrants inclusion and/or any necessary changes before it's ready for article-space to an independent, impartial editor. Your time is much appreciated in advance. Pinging user:Hordaland, who has shown an interest in the page and user:Anthonyhcole, who helped out previously and has an interest in medical topics. CorporateM (Talk) 13:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As a bit of an update, in the process of discussion with user:John Broughton on the Talk page of the draft at User:CorporateM/Invisalign, the draft is now essentially a proposed replacement of the entire article, with the exception of the over-sized advantages/disadvantages section in the current article that is mostly synth/OR. This can be tacked onto the bottom of the Comparison of section or removed as most of it does not pass muster for medical claims. There is also a debate among orthodontists on the efficacy of Invisalign compared to wire braces and other information regarding medical claims that we'll still need to be sorted out and covered before it will be GA ready. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I've read through the original article and through the draft. The draft had many more reliable sources and fixed the issues of the original article. Although written by an editor with a declared COI, the article is not written like an advertisement. Instead we have a high-quality neutral article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)