Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 22, 2026

Enhancement of Facial Rejuvenation Through a Combination of 1565 nm Non-Ablative Fractional Laser with 30% Supramolecular Salicylic Acid
Published on: September 27, 2024
Treatment time: SureSmile vs conventional
Rohit C L Sachdeva1, Sharan L T Aranha, Michael E Egan
1OraMetrix, Richardson, Texas 75082, USA. rohit.sachdeva@orametrix.com
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.