Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

ortho - the international C.E. magazine of orthodontics

I 15ortho 1_2014 study_ bracket efficiency I needed to complete treatment was reduced by 6.66 appointments, which meant 40 percent fewer ap- pointments were required to complete treatment usingIn-OvationRcomparedtotraditionaledgewise appliances. Chairtimerequiredtotreatcases The number of minutes of clinical chair time that patientsrequiredinordertocompletetreatmentwas reducedbyanaverageof174.21minutesperpatient or, put another way, approximately three hours of chair time was saved on each treated patient. That means the average case being treated with In-Ovation R took approximately five hours of chair time to treat while the average case being treated with traditional appliances took almost eight hours to treat, a time savings of approximately 36 percent. _How does the reduced chair time impact practice profitability? Suppose your practice produces a profit of $350 per hour (an average figure for an active well- managed practice), and you are able to save three hoursoneachcaseyoutreat.Thentheprofitforeach case treated is increased by approximately $1,050. However, IIn-Ovation R brackets do cost more thantraditionaledgewisebracketsbyapproximately $5 per bracket. That means if you bond five to five, you use approximately 20 brackets on each case for an additional expense of about $100 per case. So the actual estimated additional profit for each case using this scenario is about $950. That is a pretty good return onan additional investment of $100 for In-Ovation R brackets. Fig. 3_The number of minutes of clinical chair time that patients required in order to complete treatment was reduced by an average of 174.21 minutes per patient. Fig. 3

Pages Overview