Clinical outcomes for patients finished with the SureSmile™ method compared with conventional fixed orthodontic therapy

Timothy J. Alford, W. Eugene Roberts, James K. Hartsfield, George J. Eckert, Ronald J. Snyder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

56 Citations (Scopus)


Objective: Utilize American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) cast/radiographic evaluation (CRE) to compare a series of 63 consecutive patients, finished with manual wire bending (conventional) treatment, vs a subsequent series of 69 consecutive patients, finished by the same orthodontist using the SureSmile™ (SS) method. Materials and Methods: Records of 132 nonextraction patients were scored by a calibrated examiner blinded to treatment mode. Age and discrepancy index (DI) between groups were compared by t-tests. A chi-square test was used to compare for differences in sex and whether the patient was treated using braces only (no orthopedic correction). Analysis of covariance tested for differences in CRE outcomes and treatment times, with sex and DI included as covariates. A logarithmic transformation of CRE outcomes and treatment times was used because their distributions were skewed. Significance was defined as P <.05. Results: Compared with conventional finishing, SS patients had significantly lower DI scores, less treatment time (̃7 months), and better CRE scores for first-order alignment-rotation and interproximal space closure; however, second-order root angulation (RA) was inferior. Conclusion: SS patients were treated in less time to better CRE scores for first-order rotation (AR) and interproximal space closure (IC) but on the average, malocclusions were less complex and second order root alignment was inferior, compared with patients finished with manual wire bending. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:383-388.)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)383-388
Number of pages6
JournalAngle Orthodontist
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - May 2011
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical outcomes for patients finished with the SureSmile™ method compared with conventional fixed orthodontic therapy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this