Invisalign Dentists Unhappy about New Rules

Post comments about Invisalign to our blog.

Invisalign rules disappoint 4 out of 5 dentistsDentists aren’t happy with Invisalign’s new provider requirements mandating that Invisalign dentists begin at least 10 patient cases and 10 hours of CE each year.

In this survey, only 17% of dentists (and a mere 21% of orthodontists) felt it was a valid move on Invisalign’s part.

One in three (34%) say they used to offer Invisalign braces,
but will no longer be able to.

Here’s what dentists have to say about the Invisalign requirements:

Is Invisalign crazy?!?

  • "Invisalign is making a mistake. Dentists don't want to continuously use their con-ed dollars 'learning' the same crap over and over, AND general practitioners who are happy to offer Invisalign as a treatment option may have a varying number of Invisalign-qualifying cases every year. Dentists are mostly interested in new developments, technology, and profit opportunity. Why would Invisalign penalize dentists who have doing a few cases every year for the last 10 years?" (Canada dental hygienist)
  • “It's a weak move that attempts to secure future sales without considering that those of us who have done Invisalign for many years may have had cases drop off due to the economy. So if we cannot meet these requirements, we are somehow instantly unqualified to offer the service? I understand a CE requirement, but a case requirement is a pathetic reason!" (Washington dentist)

Orthodontists should be able to use orthodontic tools

  • “Board eligible orthodontists should not be limited in appliance selection as one size doesn't fit all." (Texas orthodontist)
  • “It's BS! A dentist can offer it if they do a few more cases but not a licensed orthodontist? Isn't that restraint of free trade?? The same excuse they used to begin marketing it to dentists way back, after they first said it was going to only be available to orthodontists?" (Arkansas orthodontist)
  • “As a qualified orthodontist, I find it insulting to be dictated by a dental manufacturing laboratory (which is all Invisalign Corp. is) the type of treatment I should be offering my patients. In addition to place proficiency requirements makes absolutely no sense: every practitioner's practice demographics are different, and as such, not all practitioners are able to meet the requirements. As an orthodontist practicing in a group practice with a pediatric dentist, I have little demand for Invisalign. Why am I to be penalized if and when I decide I DO want to offer it to an appropriate patient? Invisalign's proficiency requirements are nothing more than a ruse to attempt to increase their revenues. According to Invisalign, submitting a minimum of 10 cases ensures minimum proficiency, but all it does is allow Invisalign to bill out 10 case fees to an individual practitioner. If Invisalign was truly concerned about proficiency, there would be some requirement to assess finished cases by individual practitioners – but there is none. Therefore this is nothing more than a money grabbing attempt by Invisalign." (Canada orthodontist)

Requiring a minimum case load is ridiculous

  • “CE requirement is understandable. Minimum case load is not. Just because you do more cases does not mean you do them better." (New York dentist)
  • “I don't mind the 10 hours of continuing dental education annually, but it has been especially difficult to get 10 cases in this economy. The case limit is excessive." (Colorado dentist)
  • “I have no problem with continuing education requirements but requiring a minimum number of cases is a problem. I doubt that they have any conclusive evidence or studies that show a better quality result for those doing more then 10 per year. I believe it is more a dental marketing tool someone came up with that forces dentists to promote their product." (New Jersey dentist)
  • “I compliment Invisalign on the requirement that their providers stay properly educated. This ensures that those providing the service will provide the best care available. However, the minimal treatment requirement is transparently entrepreneurial and is just WRONG!" (Iowa dentist)
  • “I don't have a problem with requiring some dental continuing education especially since they have some on their website but requiring a certain number of cases per year is ridiculous. I have a part-time practice. Not a huge number of patients. I use traditional orthodontic appliances also so I have other options besides Invisalign. It seems like they sat down and calculated out how much money they want on the books and decided they would require 10 cases a year per doc to meet that figure. We have to sign a hold harmless clause every time we accept a case, so what's the problem? The whole thing seems fiscally driven." (Maryland dentist)

Who are they to tell me how many cases to do per year?

  • “I am furious that a dental company is seeking to dictate treatment!!" (District of Columbia dentist)
  • “The CE requirement is perfectly fine. The 10 cases per year requirement is unprecedented, very disturbing, and just plain wrong. What if I don't do 10 dentures or dental implants or molar root canals this year? Should I be prevented from ever doing another? Invisalign should rescind this horribly misguided policy, and the sooner the better. I highly doubt that quality of care was the motivating factor for this. Rather, the almighty dollar would seem to be the big prize here. Shame on Invisalign for demeaning our profession in this way." (Illinois dentist)
  • “I offer regular dental braces as well as Invisalign and do not feel that I have to push 10 cases a year to be competent– especially after doing full braces for 15 years." (Washington dentist)
  • “Are we sales reps for Align Tech or are we oral health care professionals? I think it is going to cause a lot of practitioners to strongly push Invisalign in cases where other perhaps less expensive, better options are available, simply because they want to meet their requirements. This is a huge problem!" (California dentist)
  • “Once a practitioner has done a minimum number of cases (say 25), they are not going to become 'worse providers' just by not meeting the minimum number of cases each year." (Virginia dentist)
  • “I refuse to recommend a treatment just so I can fulfill their contrived requirements. I hope I do get booted so I can stop listening to their bull." (New Jersey orthodontist)
  • “It has actually been a blessing in disguise since it forced me to look at other similar products, I have now become certified with a competitive product that in my opinion is superior and les expensive. As for Invisalign, I did not disagree with the continuing education requirements, however, no one has the right to require minimum cases annually; we are not in dental school!" (Kentucky dentist)
  • “The requirement of 10 cases/year may be possible for this particular office, but because you placed an absolute time limit on achieving this goal, I have not been driven to cultivate new cases out of concern that you will not allow me to continue to be an Invisalign provider. The state of the present economy discourages many patients from accepting 'expensive' treatment plans in many areas of the general dental practice. You may have shot yourself in the foot by instituting these requirements now. I will seek other aligner based ortho systems when the need arises." (General dentist)

The long-term Invisalign cost: Will this hurt Align's bottom line?

  • “This is a low blow and a poor business strategy that I hope will end Align's business future." (Texas dentist)
  • “I work as a part-time associate in a practice with the owner who also works part-time. Together we are one full-time practice since we never work together on the same days. All cases are submitted under the practice name. Align Technology (the Invisalign company) kicked me off of their certified-provider list even though the one practice together meets their qualifications and each doctor met the C.E. requirement. This is a coercive company doing what they see best for their bottom line, which of course they have every right to do. Personally, I think it was a mistake to their bottom line to kick out low-volume providers of Invisalign. Time will tell." (California orthodontist)
  • “I hope Invisalign's decision to enforce their new policy causes them to lose Millions of Dollars in revenue. Personally, whether or not I do 5 or 6 Invisalign cases a year really won't effect me, I'll just send my laboratory dollars to another clear aligner company. Oh well for Invisalign." (Kansas dentist)
  • “This company won't exist in few years, if they do not learn how to respect and work with educated dentist who are lot smarter than Invisalign." (Florida dentist)
  • “They wanted to insure themselves of a steady cash flow. Quality of provider was not an issue. They were deceitful in their introductory seminars because they did not inform people of their upcoming plans." (Michigan dentist)
  • “It's all about the money." (orthodontist)

Hello, Clear Correct!

  • “It's okay because I'm now using ClearCorrect." (New York dentist)
  • “My ClearCorrect certification course is already scheduled." (Hawaii dentist)
  • “We just started Invisalign but won't be able to offer it much longer because we haven't met the 10 required cases. We're looking into Clear Correct." (Michigan dental office worker)
  • “We've moved to Clear Correct." (New York dentist)
  • “The move will hurt Invisalign. I have moved on to ClearCorrect. Other dentists will also select other invisible ortho types rather than lose or refer." (New York dentist)
  • “Since the advent of ClearCorrect, the 'unique' benefits of Invisalign has been reduced severely in our offices to ZERO now!" (Nevada dentist)
  • “I will now offer Clear Correct in addition." (New Jersey dentist)
  • “The words 'Clear Correct' come to mind…" (Iowa orthodontist)
  • “Clear Correct might just be the fastest growing company over the next year thanks to Invisalign!" (Tennessee dentist)
  • “I am now using Clear Correct." (Texas dentist)
  • “We went with ClearCorrect. Invisalign is getting too hard to deal with and offer little support anymore to sell their product." (Michigan dentist)

They're not the only game in town

  • “Used to offer Invisalign. Choose not to offer it anymore. Will offer other aligners." (New Jersey dentist)
  • “There are better alternatives." (Texas dentist)
  • “There are other clear aligner options out there. Align technology will quickly find out that they will be loosing market share, something they worked so hard for. What a shame. Align has a good product with horrible senior management." (California dentist)
  • “The only reason I think Invisalign did this is to prevent doctors from advertising Invisalign and then using other vendors. Bur what about those of us who advertise Invisalign and do use Invisalign, but do not have at least 10 cases a year? We are now force to find a different vendor, like Clear Correct." (General dentist)
  • “They'll shoot themselves in the foot. I'm deciding on which of the several other brands to begin a relationship with. There are other games in town." (Ohio dentist)
  • “They're overpriced." (Texas dentist)
  • “I offer both Invisalign and Short-term Ortho in my practice. If Invisalign keeps these requirements I will switch to another clear aligner and offer patients other orthodontic choices. Very, very bad idea on Invisalign's part!!" (Florida dentist)

Treatment limitations

  • “Good for limited cases, but may be a way for generalists to get in trouble if they take on too difficult cases." (New Jersey dentist)
  • “I believe many of these cases (around 60%) have ended up with traditional braces by an orthodontist! Ask the specialists how many cases they had to modify!" (Florida dentist)
  • “Invisalign has many shortcomings related to cooperation by patient; you may need regular dental braces to finish to the patients' expectations." (New Jersey dentist)

Not impressed with Invisalign training

  • “I once attended an 'advanced' seminar for Invisalign. I brought a model to show to their orthodontist to ask for advice or comments on a case I was doing. One look at the model and he said, 'Oh. You can't do a case like that.' I was already halfway through it. I realized I had more experience with difficult cases than he. I am a dentist with almost 30 (at the time) years of experience, extensive experience and credentials in TMJ/TMD and several years of straitwire ortho. Then Invisalign tells me in effect that I have to do more cases with them and take CE from them or they cut me off. Clear Aligner is less expensive, sends models so I can make my own aligners immediately in case of loss or breakage, and allows changing plans in 'midstream' without penalty. Some decisions are just not very difficult." (Texas dentist)
  • "First Invisalign required completely erupted 7's. Then shortly after loosening that restriction they did this. I believe that as a pediatric dentist I should receive a refund for the cost of the course." (Washingtonpediatric dentist)
  • “Arrogance and greed drive the Invisalign policy. NOT the patient's best interests. Or, for that matter, their ethical responsibility to the dentists who paid $1600 to take their course to offer Invisalign. I will never do business with Invisalign again and will voice my opinion about Invisalign to patients when the question is asked of me." (Texas dentist)
  • “I paid over 2 grand in training fees for myself and associate and paid the wages for all 13 of my staff to attend. Will they now refund my money and reimburse me for my staffs' wages? We have done 9 cases in our office now. There is a learning curve and it takes time to incorporate new treatment modalities into a practice. I started slow placing mini dental implants, but now have placed over 300. It took 6 years to get to this point with dental implants and feel comfortable placing them. Align tech should give dentists more time and provide better support in the practices that have invested the time and monies like I have. Ultimately they may do whatever they want with their business but they should return the funds of those who invested in the training." (Colorado dentist)

Maintaining a standard of care

  • “I am sure they just want to make sure that their providers are well qualified. They probably are not averse to making some money on their courses, either." (Texas dentist)
  • “I find it non-threatening and a good move on their part. When a product of this nature is utilized, it would seem a good business move on their part to better protect the result and secondary product usage….." (Washington limited practice, including orthodontics)

In this economy?!?

  • "Poor move on Invisalign's part considering the economy." (California dentist)
  • “Due to today's poor economy and uncertain economic future, most adult patients are electing to not have orthodontic treatment. It is extremely difficult in an average size dental practice to have 10 new cases of Invisalign per year. There are other fine companies that make clear orthodontic aligners that don't have the ridiculous 'proficiency requirements' that Invisalign has implemented. I plan on switching to Clear Correct, one of the competitors to Invisalign, in a couple months." (Ohio prosthodontist)
  • “In this economy, especially when ortho is still considered elective treatment by many patients, it was rather callous to impose new requirements when, case submissions are down overall, even from the specialists. To single out the practitioners, mainly dentists, who had fewer case submissions, makes you wonder what their real motives were. After all, it took a lawsuit to make Align Tech make their product available to non-specialists in the first place." (California dentist)
  • “The number of cases a GP see or recommends for Invisalign varies from month to month or year to year. Especially in an economic downturn. Other modes of treatment will be sought out if the policy impedes my ability to provide optimal care to my patients." (Canada dentist)
  • “Taking GPs out of the picture must have been a concession to orthodontists by this company. Better training is of course a good thing but 10 cases a year in a bad economy is not always possible." (General dentist)

CE is always good

  • “In this economy the CE is a good idea, but the case load is problematic." (Florida dentist)
  • “Quotas on cases and CE are too time demanding and constraining for my type of GP situation, where I also like to do many additional types of treatment. Certainly I am in favor of and enjoy attending Invisalign CE and would continue to attend at a more relaxed schedule (build more confidence), but the mandate to start a minimum number of cases and attend classes on a strict schedule does not look like it's going to work for me."(General dentist)

Invisalign is a capitalist corporation

  • “A very arrogant company led by venture capitalists, not professionals. They have tried even patenting procedures that have routinely been part of dentistry for years, just because INVISALIGN USES THAT PROCEDURE IN PRODUCING aligners. In reality, the only thing Align has ANY stake to is the CONCEPT of serial aligners as a REPLACEMENT for real braces." (Massachusetts orthodontist)
  • “It's a free market and they can do whatever they want. I'm sure they have their reasons." (Alaska dentist)

Bogus proficiency requirements

  • “Their reasoning is specious. It's not based on proficiency. Under the rules someone who has completed hundreds of cases but then doesn't do 10/yr is no longer proficient, but someone who has just taken their course and hasn't treated even one patient is 'proficient.' Right. I've already moved on to ClearCorrect, the methodology (and pricing!) of which I prefer. Pride goes before a fall, and Align Technology is on that path." (Oregon orthodontist)
  • “The claim that this is to keep a certain standard of care is ridiculous. The local dentist who was a 'poster boy for Invisalign, and treated at least 6 cases a month, knew virtually nothing about ortho, and his cases were terrible. I had at least 2 – 3 cases a month come to me to fix the bad results that he had left them in. The one thing that he's good at is marketing. Yet this guy has not only been allowed to continue to do Invisalign, he has been promoted as a shining example of how Invisalign can be used. He hired an associate, and at least she wants to learn some ortho, and has come to my office for advice on cases and to learn something about diagnosing cases. I have averaged 6 Invisalign cases per year for the last 6 years, treat between 275 to 300 ortho cases per year, but now don't meet their criteria. I will be offering a 'Clear Alternative.'" (Illinois dentist)
  • “I treatment plan Invisalign as those patients arrive into my practice. I refuse to seek out marginal cases to fulfill a quota! It is not a measure of proficiency to be able to crank out as many cases as Invisalign would hope you would. Proficiency is getting satisfactory results regardless of how many cases you complete in 12 months. What a JOKE." (California dentist)

Interfering with doctor decision-making

  • “This requirement is bad because it interferes with the Doctor decision's making, diagnosis and treatment planning. Fortunately there are other options available, much cheaper and easier: Ortho Clear and Inman appliances work fine in the simple situations that I treat. For more complex cases I prefer traditional ortho anyway. Even the majority of orthodontists that I work with (who by their training have the proficiency requirement) and are providers do not recommend Invisalign for their complicated cases. Invisalign should not assume it has a monopoly on orthodontic treatment." (California prosthodontist)
  • “Since when does a manufacturer set our standards based on only the quantity, not quality?" (Massachusetts dentist)
  • “As a professional it should be left up to me to decide how much to offer my patients. If I chose to do only simple cases and refer the rest that should be my judgment call. When I want to do more complex cases then at my convenience I will learn more and do more Invisalign. Local orthodontists are having a challenge filling their appointment book in today's economy. Is this a way for Invisalign to stay profitable?" (Canada dentist)
  • “I'd love to see the media get a hold of this story. and how it impacts the choices doctors offer their patients. Imagine your cardiologist recommending one drug over another so he could meet the requirement to use the medication for other patients???" (Canada orthodontist)
  • “I think this is an intrusion by a manufacturer into the private practices around the country. To set an artificial limit on the number of cases you must treat in order to maintain your provider status goes against all this country stands for. If it were the government requiring this, there would be outrage. This is a manufacturer dictating treatment. There are bills being introduced into the New York State Legislature that will ban this type of intrusion. Then what will Invisalign do, not offer such treatment to dentists in New York? I think not." (New York orthodontist)

The requirements won't last

  • “Align is pushing quality providers away from their product… it was a move undertaken to increase their revenue, but it's going to do the exact opposite. I predict they'll eliminate the 10-case requirement by the end of this calendar year." (California dentist)

Dentists are angry

  • “I am furious. I have done around 125 cases and am now slowing down a little but want to still offer this to my patients. I am going to be let go as a provider because I don't have enough 'experience'?????" (New York dentist)
  • “I think that it sucks. It is very short-sighted on their part. Also, it has pissed off the general practitioners that do or did provide Invisalign in their practices." (California dentist)

Understanding Align's motivations

  • “As a practitioner, I don't like it as I don't have control over how many patients will accept Invisalign, especially in a down economy. But, I can see why Align wants to limit the number of doctors 'dabbling' with Invisalign." (Florida dentist)
  • “I understand why they did it. No issues there. I believe it should have been more specific to region, city, or state. More in some, less in others. My biggest issue is that zip code searches of your area can/will show providers many miles away from you before you. My specific example has me listed 8th for my zip code on the basic search. I am behind 5 others who are 35, 39, 39, 48, and 52 miles away. I am a preferred provider and did complete all my requirements for 2009 in 2009. Emails to my representative and to corporate have not revealed the reason. I've been trying to get answers on this since January!!! With being placed there, I know it is costing me patients as I charge less than the others and even have an internet discount! I encourage all to check where they are on the basic search and see as the patients do!" (Tennessee dentist)
  • “It's the 80/20 rule in action. 20% of the dentists brought in 80% of their business. I'm glad to be part of that group and provide excellent care for our patients." (Alaska dentist)

Making use of alternative clear braces and aligners

  • “The 10 Invisalign CE is a valid requirement. Requiring 10 cases a year caused me to utilize another clear aligner service. In my practice we do 8-10 a year, and those are not complex cases. I think Invisalign lost a large amount of business but their tech service will not have to bother with a lot of small cases. That may save them money in the long run. I am pleased with the current clear aligner company I am using although they are slower than Invisalign." (Georgia dentist)
  • “I am a GP who has offered some form of orthodontic treatment for the past 25 years. Primarily Removable followed by Band and Bracket for children and young adults. I have treated about 100 cases with Invisalign over the past 2 years. Invisalign represents a paradigm shift in orthodontics. Combined with adjuncts such as removable appliance and limited B and B, you can satisfy the needs and desires of a majority of patients. However, there is a learning curve and requires experience to tackle some of the more demanding cases. I believe Align had to limit participation in order to maintain the quality of results. For those that want to handle the simpler cases, there is Clear Correct, Simply 5, Riantree and a host of other clear aligner systems available. For those dentists that want to jump on the opportunity that Invisalign offers, the requirements are not that stringent. You just need to make the commitment and not limit your study to aligners only, but in the end that becomes the work horse. It is a real advantage to the
    cosmetic dentistry and family dental practice."
    (Florida dentist)

Invisalign patients are there for the taking

  • “I think many Invisalign dentists that are complaining about the requirement haven't even tried. In 2006 we had 4 Invisalign patients. In 2007 we decided to really start focusing on it with our existing patient base and did over 40. We now have over 200. Dentists could meet their requirement
    just by having 1 Invisalign Day a year and focus just on their existing patient base with 0 external marketing. And, the more Invisalign you do the better you are at it, the more you learn, and the more confidence you have for what it can and can't do. You paid the initial fee for the training, what where you planning on doing with the training? Let it age in your dental skill tool box?" (Ohio dentist)

Expertise is key

  • “Inexperienced providers present a big problem due to their lack of orthodontic experience." (General dentist)
  • “The more training I get with Invisalign the easier and more predictable the cases get. My stress has gone down and my out comes have gotten better. Most patients have needs that can be addressed with some degree of tooth movement. Have this tool and the knowledge behind it improves patient care." (Florida dentist)
  • “Without experience and education the outcomes will be compromised and the results poor. By making certain requirements, the outcomes will be better and the practitioners and the concept will be better served." (Illinois orthodontist)
  • “Very good for quality control and the results the public gets overall. I am a fan of anything that helps patients get better treatment and helps us dental professionals be better and more consistent overall providers of that service." (Connecticut dentist)

Other companies

  • “Somnomed has similar requirements for using their product/technology." (Oklahoma dentist)
  • “I have opened my eyes to other choices. I was already treating most of my patients with Raintree Essix materials and techniques." (Indiana dentist)
  • “Moving on to the competition." (Connecticut dentist)
  • “It's maybe a conscious move to create a trade barrier, get bombarded with class action lawsuits from dentists who invested in licensing and equipment and advertising, anger a large # of dentists and the CDA, create bad will, go bankrupt have Ortho Clear pick up the pieces , the investors to loose it all and the old US VP of sales who came up with the memo become the new VP for Ortho Clear…just a thought." (California prosthodontist)
  • “I think the company is in financial trouble and that this is a sign. I have done numerous cases, but will not fulfill my requirements as I am enjoying 6 month
    smiles much better." (General dentist)

Trying to get 10 cases a year

  • “Struggling to get enough cases, but should make it!" (California dentist)
  • “I have offered Invisalign for approximately one year and have treated five patients so far in this time, short of their requirements. If they enforce this requirement then I may not have the opportunities to grow that part my practice. A lose-lose situation for Invisalign and me." (Texas dentist)
  • “I know a couple of dentist friends of mine who cannot meet the new requirements. They have given up with Invisalign and are doing no orthodontics or using another system. It seems to me the new requirements are a bad idea for the company." (California dentist)
  • “I am going to their competitor." (Texas dentist)
  • “Currently offer Invisalign, but don't know for how much longer as I am on the 'bubble.' In this economy it is not as easy to sell Invisalign when other aligner options are cheaper and full braces treatment is more comprehensive." (Wisconsin orthodontist)
  • “Not being an orthodontist, and limiting my cases to minor correction, factoring in the economy, I may be forced out. I am still not sure of their objective on this." (Tennessee dentist)

Swearing off Invisalign forever

  • “Obvious advantage to the company. I will never work with them again." (Utah dentist)
  • “I will purposely boycott align as a result of this. No lab is going to put pressure on me with a quota requirement."
  • "This is a foolish move by Align! This will restrict the access that many patients have to invisible braces. They are not, however, the only provider and dentists are like elephants, WE NEVER FORGET." (Wisconsin dentist)
  • “Invisalign is not profitable. This new requirement is the last straw. I will not offer it any longer."

Dentists don't feel good about it

  • “I've been doing Invisalign for about five years. It's a good product. I like to be able to offer it as an adjunct to my practice. However, I do not push the hard sell to my patients. It will be Invisalign's bottom line loss if they require everyone to meet their new criteria of ten cases per year. Plus, it will effect those already in treatment, which is not addressed. It becomes not what is best for the patient, but what's best for Invisalign's bottom line." (California dentist)
  • “Though I meet the criteria and can still provide Invisalign to my patients, I feel badly for the dentists who invested their time and money into getting trained, and now cannot provide the service to their patients. Seems like it's unfair…" (Missouri dentist)
  • “First off, Align rolled this requirement out in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years and I was not happy. I am a dentist and do quite a bit of Invisalign, but I was afraid I would not be able to meet the new stringent requirements in the middle of a bad economy in one of the hardest hit states. Align was a victim of their own recruitment efforts. They aggressively marketed their introductory training program for years and soon enough, everybody and their brother were 'Invisalign Doctors.' A vast majority of these doctors did only a handful of cases, and/or were inept at marketing the program in and outside of their practices. They also failed to keep up with the Invisalign system through appropriate CE. All of which resulted in frustrated patients, doctors and overtaxed Align support staff. They simply had to cut out the 'dead wood' they had created. On the clinician side, we stand to get potentially get more cases since there will be fewer Invisalign providers and could benefit from their marketing and dental website placement. I'm happy about that part. But I wonder if this is a ploy to force doctors like me to be more aggressive than we normally would considering the bad economy. We worked our butts off to get our case numbers for 2009. Now for 2010, we are well on our way having the most case starts ever and I'm not sure why. Is it our internal and external marketing? Possibly. Is it my great placement on the Invisalign website? To some degree. A great way for patients to feel good about themselves [a cheap 'facelift'] in a sour economy? Not sure [The fact that we never have done as much teeth bleaching as we have done in the last 18 months corroborates that thought]. Invisalign is an enjoyable departure for me in my practice. It is a quirky system and its not for everyone. In spite of my enjoying it, I still have issues with some of Align's policies and fee structures. It's early in the year, yet I am still nervous about making the numbers goal. I have just finished Dentsply/ Raintree Essix's MTM [Minor Tooth Movement] course. It is a clear aligner system that offers a far less complicated and lower cost [for both doctor and patient] treatment that can rival the Invisalign Express. I will be implementing it in some simple tooth movement cases soon. It will be interesting to see how it affects Invisalign acceptance in my practice and nationwide." (General dentist)

 

Note: Survey sample included 260 respondents. Posted 4/20/2010

© 2015, The Wealthy Dentist - Dental Marketing - All Rights Reserved - Dental Website Marketing Site Map

TheWealthyDentist.com® - Contact by email - Privacy Policy

P.O. Box 1220, Tiburon, CA 94920

The material on this website is offered in conjunction with MasterPlan Alliance.

Copyright 2015 Du Molin & Du Molin, Inc. All rights reserved. If you would like to use material from this site, our reports, articles, training programs
or tutorials for use in any printed or electronic media, please ask permission first by email.