Orthodontist Video Statistics

Key takeaways

1. Orthodontists and orthodontic practices posting as themselves made 35.9% of the on-topic videos among YouTube’s most-viewed orthodontist, braces and Invisalign results and drew 42.8% of their views; dentists made 24.7% and drew 25.1% (our read, Nov 7, 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
2. Braces titles drew 62.1% of those views and Invisalign and other clear aligner titles only 3.5%; videos of 60 seconds or less drew 88.9%. (Mark Studios) See details
3. The 23 U.S. orthodontic channels in that sample posted 1,699 videos in the year to November 7, 2026, a median of 44 per channel, and the median upload had 3,618 views (our count). (Mark Studios) See details
4. Across six peer-reviewed studies of top orthodontic videos and posts, laypeople or patients made a median 49.6%; across four that report it, orthodontists made a median 42.9%, and the median DISCERN reliability score across six samples was 2.11 out of 5 (our calculation). (Mark Studios) See details
5. BLS counted 6,210 wage-and-salary orthodontist jobs in May 2025 at a median wage of $289,140, 5.7 times the median for all occupations; the ADA Health Policy Institute counted 10,844 professionally active dentists in orthodontics in 2025. (BLS) See details
6. Align Technology shipped 2.61 million clear aligner cases in 2025 (2,611.3 thousand), about 35.8% of them for teens and growing patients (our calculation); in 2024 a North American orthodontist customer received 6.6 times as many Invisalign cases as a general dentist customer. (Align Technology) See details
7. U.S. dental offices earned $18.25 billion from orthodontics in 2022 ($18,250,905,000), 11.4% of all dental-office revenue, according to the 2022 Economic Census. (U.S. Census Bureau) See details
8. The “4 million Americans wear braces” line began as an AAO count of more than 4 million children in North America (2008); the AAO homepage’s “4M people in the U.S. need or already have braces” has no source, and the AAO’s own member census estimated 6.66 million patients in the U.S. and Canada in 2024. (AAO) See details

Who makes the most-viewed braces and Invisalign videos on YouTube?

Orthodontists do, but not alone. In our November 7, 2026 read of YouTube, orthodontists and orthodontic practices posting as themselves made 35.9% of the on-topic videos among the most-viewed results for 'orthodontist', 'braces' and 'Invisalign' and drew 42.8% of their lifetime views, while general, cosmetic and other dentists made 24.7% of the videos and drew 25.1% of the views (our count). Among the videos whose titles were about orthodontic treatment, orthodontists made 39.1% and drew 50.8% of the views (our count). We read YouTube’s own view-sorted search results for the three terms on November 7, 2026, the first four pages for each, through the YouTube Data API with no country filter, and classified every channel by hand from its own title, description and video text.

The three lists held 490 unique videos from 244 channels, with 7,624,830,699 lifetime views in all. 79 videos appeared in two or more lists, and the 'braces' list held only 188 unique videos because YouTube returned some of them twice. Leaving out channels that used 'braces' in another sense, such as braces on dogs’ ears or knee braces, and three off-topic videos leaves 482 on-topic videos with 7,564,925,946 views, and the median one had 4,137,979.5 views. 82.2% of those on-topic videos had a title about braces, aligners, retainers or another orthodontic treatment, and they drew 76.7% of the views; most of the rest were general dental videos and kids’ dentist songs. View counts are lifetime snapshots and include ad views.

39 orthodontist or orthodontic practice channels appeared, and 27 of them called themselves orthodontists, board-certified orthodontists or orthodontic specialists in their own text; the rest gave only a practice name or 'orthodontic treatment' wording. We did not check any licence or board certification. The median video from an orthodontic channel had 5,061,464 views.

How much of orthodontic YouTube comes from a few channels?

Most of it. The ten biggest channels drew 69.5% of the on-topic views in our November 7, 2026 sample, and the three biggest, The Bentist, J House jr. and Nha Khoa Ocare, drew 39.8% (our count). The ten most-viewed videos alone drew 35.0% of all on-topic views.

The Bentist, a channel whose video text names orthodontist Dr. Ben Winters, drew 22.8% of the on-topic views on its own and posted 66 of the videos, more than any other channel. Its short 'When You Don’t Know How To Use Braces!' was the most-viewed video in the sample, with 713,568,583 views. Second came a J House jr. family short titled 'Braces', with 582,182,810 views, and third Dr Bar The Braces Doc’s 'Retainers Stuck?', with 397,430,814. The Braces Guy’s 'Taking Braces Off With A SPOON?!?!', an orthodontist’s warning against removing braces at home, had 135,304,119 views.

Who else posts braces and aligner videos?

Dentists, family channels and creators. Dental channels that gave no dental credential in their own text, among them Dental Digest and Nha Khoa Ocare, drew 15.8% of the on-topic views in our November 7, 2026 sample (our count). Kids’ and family channels, from nursery-rhyme cartoons to family vlogs of a child getting braces, drew 16.5%. Lifestyle, beauty, comedy and other creators made 12.4% of the on-topic videos but drew 5.5% of the views, and faceless, animation and re-post channels drew 6.8%.

Patients and brands are a small share. Patients telling their own braces or Invisalign story on small personal channels posted 20 of the on-topic videos and drew 0.9% of the views; we do not name the people behind them. Brands and sellers drew 1.3% of the views. Align Technology’s own Invisalign channels for the U.S., Japan, India, Vietnam and Australia had 95,316,438 views across their videos in the sample, and the U.S. Invisalign channel’s videos had 1,029,917. The American Association of Orthodontists’ one video in the sample, 'What Is An Orthodontist?', had 14,388,352 views. Media, TV, news and podcast channels drew 0.2% of the views.

Where are the orthodontic channels based, and do Florida practices appear?

Mostly in the United States. 23 of the orthodontic channels were U.S.-placed by their own text or country setting, and they drew 41.7% of all on-topic views in our November 7, 2026 sample, against 1.2% for orthodontists outside the United States (our count). Channels of any kind whose country setting was the United States posted 62.9% of the on-topic videos and drew 82.5% of the views.

Florida barely appears. 4 channels placed themselves in Florida in their own text, and their on-topic videos had 32,318,275 views in all. 3 of them were orthodontic practices, Shullman Orthodontics in Wellington, Jet Boutique Orthodontics in Fort Lauderdale and Fishbein Orthodontics in Pensacola; the fourth was a patient’s channel. Only Shullman and Jet Boutique are in Palm Beach, Broward or Martin County, and their videos in the sample had 27,534,312 views.

What does each search return?

Orthodontists lead most clearly on 'Invisalign'. Orthodontists’ own channels drew 65.0% of the views of the on-topic videos in YouTube’s most-viewed results for 'Invisalign' on November 7, 2026, against 42.5% for 'orthodontist' and 44.9% for 'braces' (our count). In the 'Invisalign' list, lifestyle, beauty and other creators made 20.1% of the videos, brands and sellers, mostly Align’s own channels, drew 10.0% of the views, and the median video had 429,691 views.

'Orthodontist' returns a much bigger audience and many videos that are not about orthodontics. The median on-topic video in that list had 9,402,440.5 views, and kids’ and family channels drew 19.6% of its views. Only 112 of its on-topic videos had an orthodontic title; most of the rest were about cleanings, fillings, implants or a first dentist visit.

What are the most-viewed orthodontic videos about?

Braces, by a wide margin. Titles about braces made 46.7% of the on-topic videos on November 7, 2026 and drew 62.1% of the views, with a median of 5,898,653 views (our count, a regex on titles with every match read by hand). Titles about Invisalign or other clear aligners made 33.0% of the videos but drew only 3.5% of the views, with a median of 341,309; brands and sellers drew 35.6% of the aligner videos’ views.

Results draw views. Braces-off, before-and-after, time-lapse and transformation videos drew 13.1% of the on-topic views, and dentists’ channels drew 50.0% of the views of those videos, more than orthodontists’ own channels. Videos about what to eat with braces drew 5.4% of the views, titles about retainers 6.0%, and 'orthodontist reacts' and other reaction videos 6.5%. 12.7% of on-topic titles used the word 'orthodontist' or a 'braces doc' style name.

Some subjects are small. 37 titles were about braces pain, tightening, rubber bands or wires, 16 about choosing band colours, 15 named a child, teen or daughter, and 10 were about jaw surgery, palate expanders or headgear. Titles about cost, price or whether treatment was worth it drew 0.3% of the views. 5 videos were about removing braces at home or wearing fake braces, all of them orthodontists’ warnings.

How long and how new are the most-viewed orthodontic videos?

Mostly short and recent. Videos of 60 seconds or less were 73.2% of the on-topic videos on November 7, 2026 and drew 88.9% of the views (our count). The median short had 5,471,218 views, against 1,891,677 for longer videos. 56.6% of on-topic videos were published in 2024 or later, and 90 in the year before our read.

YouTube’s altered or synthetic content field was absent from every one of the 490 videos, although J House jr. says in its own channel description that it sometimes uses AI to help make thumbnails and music. 23 of the on-topic videos were marked as made for kids, nearly all from kids’ and family channels.

How often do U.S. orthodontists post to YouTube?

Less than once a week for the median channel. The U.S.-placed orthodontist and orthodontic practice channels found in our search sample posted 1,699 videos in the year to November 7, 2026, and the median channel posted 44 (our count, every upload in the year read through the YouTube Data API). 5 of them posted 100 or more videos in the year, and 6 posted none. They had 14,090,997 subscribers between them.

Most of those videos get few views. Their uploads from the year had a median of 3,618 views, and 64.6% ran 60 seconds or less. The practice and group channels had a median of 1,363.5 views a video, against 64,772 for individual orthodontists’ channels. The Bentist posted 445 videos in the year, the most, and Braces By Britt, a board-certified orthodontist’s channel, had a median of 170,559 views a video.

In Florida, Jet Boutique Orthodontics of Fort Lauderdale posted 291 videos in the year and Shullman Orthodontics of Wellington posted 44. Fishbein Orthodontics of Pensacola had 43 videos on its channel and posted none in the year.

Who makes the orthodontic videos people find on YouTube, TikTok and Instagram?

Patients and laypeople make about half of them: across six peer-reviewed content studies published from 2020 to 2025, the median share of top videos or posts made by laypeople or patients was 49.6% (our calculation). In the four studies that counted orthodontists separately, the median share made by orthodontists was 42.9% (our calculation). Each study sampled the top results for one topic on one platform at one point in time, and each sorted uploaders its own way, so the table gives every study’s date, sample and finding side by side. The studies are from orthodontic and dental journals; most authors are orthodontists.

The audience is large. The 117 TikTok clear-aligner videos in the 2022 study had over 300 million views between them (International Orthodontics). The 84 TikTok jaw-surgery videos studied in 2025 had 246 million views (British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery), about 2.9 million per video (our calculation). The 60 most popular YouTube patient testimonials about braces and aligners, in a study by Virginia Commonwealth University orthodontists published in 2021, had been viewed 34.4 million times (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics), about 573,333 views each (our calculation). A 2025 scoping review of the published studies counted 3,129 orthodontic YouTube videos with more than 181,563,304 views across 35 studies, and found that videos by orthodontic treatment providers were of only slightly higher quality (Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research). For video and social media use by general dentists, see our dental video statistics.

How reliable are orthodontic videos on YouTube and TikTok?

Not very: across six YouTube and TikTok study samples published from 2022 to 2025, the median of the mean DISCERN reliability scores was 2.11 out of 5 (our calculation). DISCERN is a checklist experts use to rate health information; higher is better, and most of these studies used a five-point modified version. The three TikTok samples had a median of 1.6 (our calculation) and the three YouTube samples 2.56 (our calculation). In the one study that compared both platforms on the same search terms, published in 2022, YouTube scored 2.42 and TikTok 1.27 (Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery). Videos made by orthodontists score in the middle: orthodontists’ own YouTube “Invisalign” videos averaged 2.75 out of 5 in a 2024 study of 61 videos (Turkish Journal of Orthodontics).

Instagram posts are mostly marketing. In 300 posts about six marketed orthodontic products, published in 2022, 60% of the claims were judged false and treatment duration was the most common claim (The Angle Orthodontist). In 1,600 orthodontic Instagram posts collected from April to November 2025, only 25 cited scientific evidence (The Angle Orthodontist). Among the top Instagram clear-aligner posts in the 2023 study, 90.2% were self-promotional (Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research).

Does social media affect which orthodontist patients choose?

In patient surveys it is one factor among several: among 330 adults seeking orthodontic treatment, surveyed by Thai orthodontists and published in 2026, the orthodontist’s online presence was the strongest of five predictors of whom they chose (standardised beta 0.200), ahead of perceived caring and word of mouth (BMC Oral Health). In an online snowball survey published in 2025, 92.2% of 206 adults who had sought or received orthodontic treatment used Instagram, and Instagram was the platform they used most to choose an orthodontist (The Angle Orthodontist). In India, 63.6% of 300 people seeking or in aligner treatment said social media had a high or very high influence on choosing aligners (Cureus, 2025). At one UK hospital department, 30% of 125 orthodontic patients had used orthodontic social media (Journal of Orthodontics, 2021). A 2026 systematic review found only eight studies on whether orthodontic social media content changes willingness to start treatment; before-and-after images were the content most consistently linked to higher willingness (Dentistry Journal). None of these samples was drawn to represent a country’s population, and we found no comparable peer-reviewed U.S. survey.

Does video help orthodontic patients learn and keep their teeth clean?

Video teaches about as well as a leaflet and saves chair time: in a randomised trial of 64 adolescents starting braces in Jordan, published in 2021, a 3D animated video matched a verbal explanation plus leaflet on recall and needed 8.5 fewer minutes of clinician time (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics). The trials below are small and mostly single-centre.

How many orthodontists use remote monitoring, and what does it change?

Most orthodontists who answered a 2024-published survey of American Association of Orthodontists members used it: 69.74% of 152 respondents used tele-orthodontics, though only 2.4% of members invited answered (Progress in Orthodontics). 89% of those users, and 61% of non-users, saw it as useful for monitoring aligner patients (Progress in Orthodontics). COVID-19 started much of this: in a 2021 survey of orthodontists recruited through the AAO and Harvard alumni, a quarter began using a remote monitoring platform during the pandemic, after negligible use before it; the abstract does not give the number of respondents (BMC Oral Health).

Remote monitoring cuts visits more clearly than it shortens treatment. A systematic review of 11 studies, published in 2023, found Dental Monitoring (a commercial app that scores patients’ phone scans) cut in-office visits by 1.68-3.5 visits, with no evidence that it shortens treatment or reduces emergency appointments (Journal of Orthodontics). In a 2023 randomised trial of 56 clear-aligner patients at one Australian practice, the monitored group needed 1.5 fewer appointments (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics) but took 1.9 months longer to finish (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics). A 2021 retrospective study of 90 Invisalign patients found 33.1% fewer appointments with monitoring (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics). In a 2026 Sydney trial of 178 patients referred for public orthodontic care, remote triage with scans and AI was 2.9 times faster than face-to-face triage, but it wrongly rejected three referrals (European Journal of Orthodontics).

Patients still want to see the orthodontist. In a survey of 377 adult patients and parents at 8 U.S. private practices, published in 2022, 86% of adults said face-to-face interaction with the orthodontist was important (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics), and 27% of adults in clear aligners were interested in teledentistry against 18% in braces (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics). Among 470 users of direct-to-consumer at-home aligners recruited online in March-August 2019, 87.5% were satisfied (The Journal of the American Dental Association), and 6.6% had to visit a dentist because of adverse effects (The Journal of the American Dental Association).

Do clear aligners finish faster than braces?

Not on the best evidence: a 2025 meta-analysis of 15 trials with 1,084 patients found no significant difference in treatment quality or duration between clear aligners and fixed braces in non-extraction cases, and better results with braces in extraction cases (European Journal of Orthodontics). The trials were small, with varying risk of bias and short follow-up.

How many orthodontists are there in the U.S.?

The ADA Health Policy Institute (HPI), the research arm of the dental profession’s trade association, counted 10,844 professionally active dentists working in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics in 2025, from the ADA masterfile (ADA HPI). In 2001 it counted 9,265 (ADA HPI), so the specialty grew 17.0% over those years (our calculation). The HPI’s 2026 workforce deck calls orthodontics the most prevalent dental specialty and says about 5% of U.S. dentists are orthodontists (ADA HPI).

The same HPI series counts 205,088 professionally active U.S. dentists in 2025 (ADA HPI), or 60.0 per 100,000 people (ADA HPI). Orthodontists are 5.3% of that total, and there are about 3.2 orthodontists per 100,000 people (our calculation from the HPI figures). The HPI counts a dentist in every specialty they hold a certificate in, so both ratios are slight upper bounds. Across all specialties, 21.2% of active dentists say their practice, research or administration area is an ADA-recognized specialty (ADA HPI). The government’s job and wage counts for orthodontists are in the workforce section; they count employees a different way. General dentists and dental practices are covered on our dental video statistics page.

How do orthodontists train and become board certified?

Orthodontists are dentists who finish an accredited residency after dental school. The ADA HPI counted 67 accredited orthodontics programs in the U.S. in 2020 (ADA HPI), and those programs graduated 391 orthodontists that year (ADA HPI). Each program received an average of 160.3 applications in 2020 (ADA HPI). One year of graduates equals about 3.6% of the orthodontists counted in 2025 (our calculation; the two figures are from different years).

In 2023–24, 1,146 residents were enrolled across all years of U.S. orthodontics programs, per the HPI and the Commission on Dental Accreditation (ADA HPI). Women were 57.9% of them (ADA HPI).

Board certification is a separate, voluntary step run by the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO), the specialty’s certifying board. Residents can sit its written exam after at least 18 months of an accredited program, and certified orthodontists renew every ten years (ABO). The ABO certified 381 orthodontists in the fourth quarter of 2025 (ABO). It says board-certified orthodontists are 68.7 percent of all orthodontists in the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO), without saying which year’s membership it used (ABO).

How many orthodontists practise in Florida, and in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

About 644 dentists practising in Florida named orthodontics as their main practice type in 2023–2024, by our estimate from the Florida Department of Health’s dentist workforce survey (our calculation). The survey went to every dentist renewing a Florida license; 16,406 answered (Florida DOH), and 77% of them were practising in Florida (Florida DOH). Orthodontics was the second most common practice type, reported by 5.1% of practising dentists (Florida DOH), down slightly from 5.4% in the 2019–2020 survey (Florida DOH). Dentists in the 2023–2024 survey reported 649 orthodontic specialty certifications, more than for any other specialty (Florida DOH). That is 6.0% of the national HPI count (our calculation; the state and the ADA count in different ways).

The 2023–2024 report gives county counts for all dentists only. Broward County had 1,384 practising dentists (Florida DOH) and Palm Beach County 1,162 (Florida DOH), second and third after Miami-Dade. The latest report with orthodontists by county is the 2019–2020 survey, published in 2023:

The three counties held 21.9% of Florida’s reported orthodontic certifications in 2019–2020 (our calculation). Dentists could list more than one county and specialty, so these are certifications reported, not unique people.

Who owns orthodontic practices?

68% of orthodontists answering the AAO’s 2025 member survey owned their practice alone or with partners, down from 2018 (AAO). The share working in orthodontist-owned practices held at 70% in 2024 after years of decline (AAO). In the AAO’s 2019 survey, 6% of respondents worked for a corporate practice or dental service organization (DSO) (AAO). In 2025, 47% of female respondents said a DSO or orthodontic service organization was their first job out of residency, more than twice the male share (AAO). The AAO is the specialty’s trade association, and its survey is self-reported with a low response rate.

Debt shapes those choices. Respondents to the AAO’s 2025 survey left residency owing an average of $239,000 in student loans (AAO).

Private equity has grown across dentistry as a whole. ADA economists writing in Health Affairs (Nasseh and colleagues, 2024) found that 12.8 percent of U.S. dentists were affiliated with private equity in 2021, 1.9 times the 2015 share (Health Affairs) (our calculation). Their abstract gives no figure for orthodontists alone. A follow-up study of 2015–2021 claims data (Nasseh and colleagues, Health Services Research, 2026) found that dental offices raised their list charges by 3.3% after a private equity purchase, while the prices insurers allowed did not change (Health Services Research).

What do the AAO’s own surveys say about orthodontic patients?

The AAO says it represents 19,000 member orthodontists in the U.S., Canada and abroad (AAO). Its 2025 Economics of Orthodontics and Patient Census Survey drew 635 usable responses from members in the U.S. and Canada, early in 2025, about their 2024 practices (AAO). Respondents averaged 696 patients in active treatment each, the highest since the survey began (AAO), and 21.3% more than in 2022 (our calculation).

Scaling those answers to its member list, the AAO estimates its members had about 6.66 million patients in treatment in the U.S. and Canada in 2024 (AAO), including about 1.91 million adults in the U.S. (AAO). The adult estimate rose 16.5% from 2022 (our calculation). These are the association’s extrapolations, not counts, and they leave out patients of general dentists and mail-order aligner companies.

A separate AAO-commissioned consumer study in 2024 found orthodontists treated 70% of people in orthodontic treatment, with general and pediatric dentists and mail-order aligner companies treating the rest (AAO). 83% of consumers said they trusted treatment from an orthodontist more than from companies that mail aligners to the home (AAO). On average, consumers thought a child’s first orthodontic check should come at age 9.5, later than the AAO itself recommends (AAO). The AAO’s public summary of this study gives no sample size or field dates.

How do patients find orthodontists, and what do YouTube and Google allow?

Referrals from dentists are fading. In the AAO’s 2024 consumer study, a dentist’s recommendation was the main reason only 28% of patients chose their orthodontist (AAO). In the AAO’s 2019 member survey, social media was already the most used way to reach prospective patients, used by 59% of respondents (AAO). In 2025, 24% of responding members said they ask new patients whether they found the practice through the AAO’s own “Find an Orthodontist” tool (AAO).

YouTube’s health source labels and health shelves are open to licensed professionals whose channels pass 1,500 valid public watch hours in a year (YouTube). Its list of eligible professions starts with Licensed Doctor and runs through nurses, psychologists, family therapists and clinical social workers; dentists and orthodontists are not named (YouTube). Individual U.S. professionals could apply from October 27th 2022 (YouTube).

Google Ads treats Health as a sensitive interest category with targeting limits (Google). Advertisers in those categories cannot use advertiser-curated audiences such as customer lists (Google). The policy page does not say how Google classes dental or orthodontic ads.

How many orthodontists are on a payroll, by the government’s count?

Orthodontists held 6,210 wage and salary jobs in the United States in May 2025, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey of employers (BLS). That count covers orthodontists on a payroll (SOC 29-1023) and leaves out those who own an unincorporated practice and pay themselves as self-employed.

BLS Employment Projections, which add the self-employed, put the occupation at 7.1 thousand jobs in 2025 (BLS). Self-employed workers held 12.6% of orthodontist jobs that year (BLS), against 5.8% of all U.S. jobs (BLS): orthodontist jobs were 2.2 times as likely to be self-employed (our calculation). That works out to about 900 self-employed orthodontist jobs in 2025, computed from BLS's rounded figures (our calculation).

Offices of dentists, the industry that holds orthodontic practices (NAICS 621200), employed 5,990 wage and salary orthodontists in May 2025, per OEWS (BLS). That is 96.5% of all orthodontists on a payroll (our calculation); the rest worked in other industries. BLS published no orthodontist estimate for offices of physicians.

How much do orthodontists earn?

The median annual wage for U.S. orthodontists was $289,140 in May 2025, per BLS OEWS (BLS). The mean was lower, $259,400 (BLS), because pay at the bottom of the range is spread out further than pay at the top. These figures cover wage and salary orthodontists only, not the profits of practice owners.

The 90th percentile wage was 4.2 times the 10th percentile in May 2025 (our calculation). Orthodontists who worked in offices of dentists had a median of $287,960 (BLS), close to the all-industry figure.

The May 2025 median for all U.S. occupations was $50,980 (BLS), so the orthodontist median was 5.7 times as high (our calculation). The median for general dentists was $170,950 (BLS); orthodontists' median was 1.7 times that (our calculation). The dental video statistics page covers general dentists, hygienists and assistants.

Older BLS tables did not print an orthodontist median at all. In the May 2023 estimates, the median, 75th and 90th percentile wages for U.S. orthodontists were shown only as “equal to or greater than” $239,200 a year, BLS's top code at the time (BLS). For May 2025 BLS printed every percentile as a number, up to $416,000.

What does BLS publish for Florida and South Florida orthodontists?

Florida had 450 wage and salary orthodontist jobs in May 2025, per BLS OEWS (BLS), or 7.2% of the U.S. total (our calculation). Florida's location quotient for orthodontists was 1.13 (BLS): orthodontists made up a slightly larger share of Florida jobs than of U.S. jobs.

BLS did not release Florida orthodontist wages for May 2025; the API marks the mean, median and percentiles “Estimate not released.” The newest Florida wage we could read is from May 2023, when BLS put the state's mean annual orthodontist wage at $323,030 while withholding the employment count and showing the median only as at or above the top code (BLS). BLS rates that mean as imprecise: its relative standard error is high for a wage estimate.

BLS published no orthodontist estimates for the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metro area (which holds Palm Beach and Broward counties), for its West Palm Beach or Fort Lauderdale divisions, or for the Port St. Lucie metro area (which holds Martin County) in May 2025: the series do not exist in the BLS API. On its May 2023 orthodontist page, BLS's only Florida entry in the metro-area lists was North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, among the top-paying areas with a mean annual wage of $235,380 and no released job count (BLS).

How fast is orthodontist employment expected to grow?

BLS projects employment of U.S. orthodontists to grow 6.0% from 2025 to 2035 (BLS), from 7.1 thousand to 7.5 thousand jobs (BLS). Total U.S. employment is projected to grow 3.5% over the same decade (BLS), so orthodontist jobs are expected to grow 1.7 times as fast (our calculation).

BLS expects about 0.2 thousand openings for orthodontists a year, on average, from 2025 to 2035 (BLS). Most openings replace orthodontists who retire or leave the occupation, not new jobs. These projection counts include the self-employed, so they are higher than the OEWS payroll count.

How big is the dental-office industry orthodontists work in?

U.S. offices of dentists with paid employees had revenue of $160.3 billion in 2022, according to the Census Bureau's 2022 Economic Census (Census). Every figure in this section covers all dental offices (NAICS 621210): orthodontic practices are counted together with general and other specialist dental offices, and federal statistics do not publish them separately.

Census County Business Patterns counted 135,665 offices of dentists with paid employees in 2023 (Census). Census Nonemployer Statistics counted 54,452 dental businesses with no paid employees that year (Census), about 40 for every 100 offices with employees (our calculation). Many nonemployer dental businesses are dentists working as independent contractors rather than storefront practices. By 2024 the nonemployer count had reached 57,079 (Census).

Offices of dentists spent $2.29 billion on purchased advertising and promotional services in 2024, per the Census Bureau's Annual Integrated Economic Survey of employer firms (Census). That covers money paid to outside agencies, platforms and media, not staff time.

How much do U.S. dental offices earn from orthodontics?

U.S. offices of dentists earned $18.25 billion from orthodontic services in 2022, according to the product lines of the 2022 Economic Census (Census). Orthodontics made up 11.4% of all dental-office revenue that year (Census).

59,155 dental offices reported orthodontic revenue in 2022 (Census), or 43.3% of all offices of dentists with paid employees (Census). That group includes general dental offices that do some orthodontic work, not only orthodontic practices. In the offices that reported it, orthodontics made up 23.0% of their revenue (Census), and the average office took in about $308,500 from it (our calculation).

Who pays U.S. dental offices, and how many offer telemedicine?

Private health insurance paid U.S. offices of dentists $70.5 billion in 2022, per the 2022 Economic Census revenue-by-payer table for all dental offices (Census), or 44.0% of their revenue (our calculation). Patients and their families paid $63.5 billion out of pocket (Census), 39.6% of revenue (our calculation). Medicaid fee-for-service paid $7.7 billion (Census), 4.8% (our calculation). The table has no separate line for Medicaid managed care, and it does not split orthodontic revenue by payer.

2,560 offices of dentists had any revenue from telemedicine services in 2022, per the same Economic Census (Census): 1.9% of offices with paid employees (our calculation). Census does not publish how much of that revenue came from telemedicine itself.

How many dental offices are there in Florida and South Florida?

Census County Business Patterns counted 9,039 offices of dentists with paid employees in Florida in 2023 (Census), 6.7% of the U.S. total (our calculation). Nonemployer Statistics counted 5,493 Florida dental businesses with no paid employees that year (Census): about 61 for every 100 employer offices, well above the national ratio (our calculation). In 2024 the Florida nonemployer count was 6,024 (Census). As above, these are all dental offices, not orthodontic practices alone.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) counted 2,083 private offices of dentists across Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties in 2025, employing 13,804 workers on average (our calculation from the county rows below).

QCEW counts worksites covered by unemployment insurance, so a group practice with several locations counts once per location, and self-employed dentists are excluded. Nonemployer counts come from tax records and are for 2024, a year earlier than the QCEW counts.

How common is malocclusion in the United States?

Most Americans have at least some irregularity of the front teeth. In NHANES III, the federal exam survey of 1988-1991, only 35% of adults had well-aligned lower incisors (Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg, Proffit et al. 1998), so 65% did not (our calculation). The survey’s bite exam covered over 7,000 people aged 8 to 50, weighted to the non-institutionalized U.S. population. It is still the newest national measure: NIH’s 2021 Oral Health in America report says the last national surveillance of malocclusion in children ran from 1988 to 1991 (NIDCR).

Measured to the millimetre in the same 1988-1991 survey, only 22% of people aged 8 to 50 had zero malalignment of the lower front teeth, and only 25% of the upper front teeth (J Dent Res, Brunelle et al. 1996). Put the other way, 78% had some measurable lower-incisor irregularity and 75% some upper-incisor irregularity (our calculation). “Some” starts at a fraction of a millimetre. It is not a diagnosis and not a need for braces.

Severity is a separate number. Proffit and colleagues judged incisor irregularity severe enough in 15% of people that appearance and function could be affected. About 20% had a bite that deviated from the ideal, and in 2% the deviation was severe enough to be disfiguring (Proffit et al. 1998). Scored with the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need, 57% to 59% of each racial/ethnic group had at least some degree of treatment need, slight need included.

For teenagers, NIH’s 2021 report reads the same survey this way: about half of those aged 12 to 17 needed orthodontic treatment, only 12% had no malalignment of the front teeth, and overbite was in the normal range for 66.2% (NIDCR). That leaves 88% of adolescents aged 12 to 17 with some front-tooth malalignment (our calculation). The same report says surveillance of malocclusion “has not been a priority for public health entities”.

How common is malocclusion worldwide?

Estimates vary widely with the study and the definition. A 2020 meta-analysis of 77 studies published in 2009-2019 put the worldwide prevalence of malocclusion in children and adolescents at 56% (95% CI 11-99%) (Eur J Paediatr Dent, Lombardo et al. 2020). For studies from the Americas it was 53%.

Reviews that sort people by Angle class disagree on the biggest group. A 2018 review of 53 studies found 74.7% of people with permanent teeth in Class I and 19.56% in Class II (5.93% in Class III) (Dental Press J Orthod, Alhammadi et al. 2018). A 2022 review of 123 studies of people aged 18 or under found a mean of 51.9% in Class I and 23.8% in Class II (6.5% in Class III) (Int J Environ Res Public Health, De Ridder et al. 2022). Class I means the back teeth meet normally, with crowding or other problems in front, so it is not a pure malocclusion rate. The 2022 authors conclude that the variety of methods “makes the data regarding prevalence of malocclusion unreliable”. For preschool children, a 2024 review of 47 studies found prevalence from 28.4% to 83.9% in the primary teeth (Healthcare, Chen et al. 2024).

How many Americans get orthodontic treatment, and who?

In NHANES III (1988-1991), almost 20% of U.S. adults aged 18 to 50 and 18% of children said they had ever had orthodontic treatment (J Dent Res, Brunelle et al. 1996). Treatment followed race and income. Over 30% of white youths reported treatment, against 8% of Black youths (11% of Mexican-American youths), and about 5% of people in the lowest income group (Proffit et al. 1998).

In any one year the share is smaller. Household surveys for the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found slightly more than 3% of the U.S. population had an orthodontic visit in 1987 and in 1996 (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, Manski et al. 2000). In the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) for 2003-2015, the share fell to an all-time low of 2.5% in 2010, during the Great Recession, and then partly recovered (J Am Dent Assoc, Guay & Blatz 2019). Among children aged 9 to 18, the yearly share with an orthodontic visit stayed between 14.3 percent and 16.8 percent from 1996 to 2004, with lower odds for Black, Hispanic, low-income and Medicaid-eligible children (J Public Health Dent, Okunseri et al. 2007). Among adults in 2000-2004 it was about 1% (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, Whitesides et al. 2008).

Orthodontics is mostly care for young people. In AHRQ’s MEPS tables, orthodontic work was 13.74% of dental procedures for Americans under 21 in 2015 (AHRQ MEPS). Across all ages, its share of dental procedures slipped from 6.83% in 1996 to 5.11% in 2015, down 1.72 percentage points (our calculation). In MEPS 2009 and 2013, orthodontic procedures were the third-largest dental treatment category for people up to age 20, at 14.5%, but only 9.4% for publicly insured children (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, Laniado et al. 2017). In one study sample from the 2019 MEPS, 491 of 12,422 respondents used orthodontics, and 67.6% of them were under 18 (61.1% were female; 52.7% had a family income of $100,000 or more) (Dent J, Hung et al. 2023).

Any dental visit is far more common than orthodontic care: 86.9% of U.S. children aged 2-17 had a dental visit in the past year in 2019, according to the National Health Interview Survey (NCHS). General dental use is covered on the dental video statistics page.

What does orthodontic treatment cost, and who pays?

Families pay most of it. In MEPS 2010-2012, average yearly orthodontic expenditures for U.S. children aged 0-17 with orthodontic care were $1,823, and 56% ($1,023) of that was paid out of pocket (Acad Pediatr, Berdahl et al. 2016). The remaining $800 came from insurance and other payers (our calculation). MEPS counts payments made within the survey year, and orthodontic flat fees can be paid over several years, so this is not the full price of a course of braces.

Nationally, total orthodontic spending reached $19.9 billion in 2016, up from $11.5 billion in 1996 in 2016 dollars (BMC Oral Health, Hung et al. 2021), a real increase of 73% (our calculation). Spread over the whole population, patients or not, it came to $61.52 per person in 2016 (from $42.69 in 1996). Out-of-pocket payment was the largest source throughout, and public insurance, though it grew most, stayed the smallest. Treatment also takes time: a 2016 meta-analysis of 22 prospective studies with 1,089 participants found comprehensive treatment with fixed braces lasted 19.9 months on average, with 17.81 visits (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, Tsichlaki et al. 2016).

Medicaid covers orthodontic treatment for some low-income children, under state rules described in this page’s rules section, and what it pays varies by state. In 2024 state fee schedules, average Medicaid payment for Phase II comprehensive orthodontia was $2,596.73 in Medicaid expansion states against $1,266.78 in non-expansion states (Cleft Palate Craniofac J, McCall et al. 2026), 2.05 times as much (our calculation). Phase II coverage appeared in the schedules of 87.8% of expansion states and 77.8% of non-expansion states.

Few enrolled children start treatment. In Washington state in 2012, 7,313 of 570,364 Medicaid-enrolled children aged 6 to 19 received records and began Medicaid-funded orthodontic treatment, out of 8,223 approved (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, Merritt et al. 2016). That is 1.28% of enrolled children and 88.9% of those approved (our calculation). On the provider side, 60% of 70 North Carolina orthodontists surveyed for 2005 had started no Medicaid cases that year, and orthodontists cite low fees as the main barrier (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, Murdock et al. 2010).

Payment type also tracked whether treatment was finished. In a 2012 chart review of 219 orthodontic patients at one rural Appalachian dental office, 49.8% completed treatment, and completion was highest among self-pay patients, at 74% (against 34% for Medicaid/CHIP and 36% for private insurance) (Front Public Health, Martin et al. 2017). One office is not a national rate.

How many clear aligner cases does Align ship, and to how many doctors?

Align Technology shipped 2,611.3 thousand clear aligner cases in 2025, up 4.7% from 2024, according to its Form 10-K for fiscal 2025 (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). That is 3.7 times its 2016 volume (our calculation). Align counts a case when it ships it, which is not the same as a new patient start. The cases went to 130.0 thousand doctors in 2025, against 130.4 thousand in 2024; general dentist submitters fell about 2% and orthodontist submitters rose about 2% (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). The year before, the doctor count had grown 3.6% from 125.8 thousand in 2023, with orthodontists up about 4% (Align 10-K for fiscal 2024).

Orthodontists use Invisalign far more heavily than general dentists do. In 2024 Align shipped 95.0 cases per North American orthodontist customer and 14.3 per North American general dentist customer, so an orthodontist received 6.6 times as many cases (our calculation from the fiscal 2024 10-K). Cases per orthodontist rose 46.2% from 2019 to 2024 (our calculation). Across all doctors worldwide, Align shipped 20.1 cases per doctor in 2025, against 19.1 in 2024 (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). The fiscal 2025 10-K no longer splits this figure between orthodontists and general dentists, so 2024 is the latest year for the split.

Align defines cases per doctor as cases shipped divided by the number of doctors who received at least one case that year. Its fiscal 2024 10-K shows higher 2022 figures than the fiscal 2022 10-K first reported; the table uses the later filing. The 2016 filing labels its case table "in millions", an evident error for thousands.

Orthodontists submit almost all of their cases digitally: in the fourth quarter of 2022, 97.4% of the Invisalign cases North American orthodontists submitted came in as digital scans rather than physical impressions (Align 10-K for fiscal 2022). International doctors received 43.6% of Align's case shipments in 2019, up from 34.5% in 2016 (our calculation from the fiscal 2016 and 2019 10-Ks). By 2024 Align's international clear aligner case revenues of $1,500.5 million exceeded its Americas case revenues of $1,426.3 million (Align 10-K for fiscal 2024). Align's clear aligner revenue per case was $1,245 in 2025, down from $1,295 (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025); that is what Align earns from the practice, not the fee a patient pays.

How much of Align's business comes from teens?

Align shipped 935.8 thousand clear aligner cases for teens and growing patients in 2025, up 7.8% from 868.1 thousand in 2024 (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). That is about 35.8% of all its case shipments, up from 34.8% (our calculation). The filing does not say where the age line falls.

Align's own estimate is that about 22 million people worldwide start orthodontic treatment each year and that its share of the case starts through orthodontists is approximately 10% (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). It puts teenage and younger patients at approximately 70% of those starts (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). Neither estimate has a named source. Align says over 22 million people have been treated with Invisalign since launch (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025).

The filing also describes the calendar of an orthodontic practice: in North America, summer is typically the busiest season for orthodontists with many adolescent and teenage patients, because parents start children in treatment before the school year, while many general dentists start fewer cases then (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). Align adds that patient traffic was uneven for many doctors in 2025, with orthodontic starts down for 4 consecutive years; it gives no count behind that statement (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025).

What does Align tell investors about video, social media and influencers?

Align spent $188.7 million on advertising in 2025, against $185.0 million in 2024 (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025), or about $72 per clear aligner case shipped (our calculation). That covers the manufacturer's own consumer and professional advertising, not what orthodontic practices spend. Align says that in 2025 it kept investing in Invisalign campaigns aimed at young adults, parents and teens on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, SnapChat, WeChat, and Douyin (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). Its risk factors name social media influencers among its significant marketing costs, alongside television, film, print and sports alliances, and warn that the campaigns may not pay back (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). The filing gives no spend by platform.

Video also shows up in the chair. Align's Invisalign Outcome Simulator Pro with Smile Video shows the patient a moving simulation of the result on their own face, a tool Align says is designed to improve patient conversion (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025). Align names its direct-to-consumer competitors as companies that ship aligners with little or no in-office care from doctors, and adds doctors who 3D-print their own aligners and retainers (Align 10-K for fiscal 2025).

What happened to the direct-to-consumer aligner companies?

SmileDirectClub, which sold aligners directly to consumers, shipped 453,053 unique aligner orders in 2019 (SmileDirectClub 10-K for fiscal 2020) and 232,788 in 2022 (SmileDirectClub 10-K for fiscal 2022), a fall of 48.6% (our calculation). Each order is one customer. Its marketing and selling expenses were 61.7% of revenues in 2022, or $290.2 million (SmileDirectClub 10-K for fiscal 2022): about $1,247 per order shipped (our calculation). That line includes SmileShop rent and sales staff, so it is not comparable with Align's advertising alone. Its average gross price per order was $1,913 in 2022, below its standard $2,050 price because of discounts (SmileDirectClub 10-K for fiscal 2022).

The doctors behind the model were few. SmileDirectClub described a network of more than 200 licensed orthodontists and general dentists who reviewed and prescribed treatment remotely across the U.S., Puerto Rico, Canada, Australia, the U.K., France and Ireland (SmileDirectClub 10-K for fiscal 2022), plus over 125 SmileShops and partnerships with over 1,000 dental practices for in-person scans (SmileDirectClub 10-K for fiscal 2022). It said it had helped over 1.9 million customers (1,900,000) (SmileDirectClub 10-K for fiscal 2022). The company and certain subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 on September 29, 2023 (SmileDirectClub 8-K). It filed no annual report for fiscal 2023, and the later conversion to Chapter 7 does not appear in an 8-K on EDGAR.

Dentsply Sirona suspended the sale and marketing of its direct-to-consumer Byte aligners on October 24, 2024 and stopped taking new Byte patients in January 2025; Byte sales were still approximately 2% of its 2025 revenue, as it kept supporting patients already in treatment (Dentsply Sirona 10-K for fiscal 2025). It cut 2024 net sales by $35 million for expected customer refunds (Dentsply Sirona 10-K for fiscal 2024). Its Orthodontics product category, which also includes SureSmile aligners prescribed by dentists and orthodontists, had net sales of $227 million in 2025, against $299 million in 2024 and $339 million in 2023 (Dentsply Sirona 10-K for fiscal 2025), a fall of 33.0% in two years (our calculation). Envista, whose orthodontic brands (Ormco, Damon, Spark) sell mainly to orthodontists, shipped its one millionth Spark clear aligner case in 2025; it does not report Spark volume or orthodontic revenue separately (Envista 10-K for fiscal 2025).

Which smaller filers describe patient video?

Dror Ortho-Design, a small aligner developer, describes a free ZSmile smartphone app that will let prospective patients film their smile and upload a 2D video, which its software turns into a 3D model to screen them for treatment and later to track progress remotely (Dror Ortho-Design 10-K for fiscal 2025). The filing says the next version of the platform had not yet been submitted to the FDA. iCoreConnect, a dental software company in Ocoee, Florida, said its iCoreAcademy library offered over 100 4K, 3D patient education videos in English and Spanish, designed to improve treatment plan acceptance, which practices can brand with their own logos (iCoreConnect 10-K for fiscal 2024).

How often do annual reports mention orthodontists and clear aligners?

8 Form 10-K annual reports filed in 2025, mostly fiscal 2024 reports, contained the word "orthodontist" or "orthodontists", the same number as in 2001, against a peak of 17 in 2003 and a low of 3 in 2019 (our calculation from SEC EDGAR full-text search). The 2003 peak included the orthodontic and dental practice-management companies of that era, such as Orthodontic Centers of America, Castle Dental Centers and InterDent. From 2001 to 2025, 197 10-Ks by 63 companies used either word (our calculation). Of the 8 filed in 2025, 5 came from makers of orthodontic or dental products and software; the others were a sleep-apnea appliance maker, a bank that lends to dental practices and a medical-apparel brand that counts orthodontists among its customers (our calculation).

The phrase "clear aligner" or "clear aligners" appeared in 46 10-Ks by 10 companies from 2001 to 2025: none before 2008, then almost only Align until 2018, rising to 7 filings in 2024 and 5 in 2025 (our calculation). 35 10-Ks by 17 companies from 2001 to 2025 contained both "orthodontist" (or "orthodontists") and "video", 5 of them filed in 2025 (our calculation). Of those 5, 3 describe patient-facing video products (Align's Smile Video, Dror Ortho-Design's smartphone smile videos and iCoreConnect's education library); in the other 2, "video" meant employee video chats or a brand's own photo and video shoots (our calculation). "Orthodontist" or "orthodontists" appeared together with "social media" in 34 10-Ks from 2001 to 2025, none before 2009 (our calculation). The word "teledentistry" appeared in 17 10-Ks, none before 2020; SmileDirectClub used it in every annual report it filed from 2020 to 2023 (our calculation). The yearly counts, filer names and query links are in our EDGAR counts file.

What rules govern orthodontic devices, direct-to-consumer aligners, teledentistry, dental advertising and endorsements, and Medicaid orthodontic coverage (federal and Florida)?

Four layers of rules apply: FDA device rules for the appliances, Florida’s dental statutes and Board of Dentistry rules for exams, telehealth and ads, the FTC’s rules on testimonials and reviews, and federal and Florida Medicaid law on who gets braces paid for. Since July 2024, Florida has also required an in-person exam before any orthodontic treatment starts, the rule aimed most directly at direct-to-consumer aligners.

FDA device classes. The FDA’s dental device regulations put metal brackets, bands, elastics, springs and orthodontic wire in Class I (general controls), exempt from premarket notification (eCFR, 21 CFR 872.5410). Plastic brackets are Class II devices (eCFR, 21 CFR 872.5470), and so is extraoral headgear, at Class II (eCFR, 21 CFR 872.5500). A preformed tooth positioner, which the patient bites on for several hours a day after braces come off, is Class I and exempt (eCFR, 21 CFR 872.5525). Clear aligners fall under the plastic-bracket regulation: FDA’s product code NXC, “aligner, sequential”, covers devices that move teeth by continuous gentle force to treat minor tooth malocclusion (FDA product classification, Internet Archive copy), and a new aligner reaches the market through a 510(k) premarket notification (FDA product classification).

FDA’s openFDA database lists 145 510(k) clearances under code NXC as of its October 26, 2026 data update (openFDA). The first was Align Technology’s “ALIGN SYSTEM” (K981095), decided on 1998-09-08 (openFDA). Each clearance is one 510(k) decision, not one company or one product line.

Yearly NXC clearances fell from 20 in 2021 to 11 in 2025 in openFDA’s records, which FDA labels unvalidated; a late-posted decision can still raise a year’s count.

What does Florida require before aligner treatment, teledentistry and orthodontic ads?

Since July 1, 2024, when chapter 2024-214 took effect after the governor signed it on May 29, 2024 (Florida House staff analysis), a Florida dentist must examine a patient in person, or obtain records of an in-person exam from the previous 12 months and review recent radiographs or equivalent imaging, before first correcting a malposition of teeth or first using an orthodontic appliance (Florida Legislature, s. 466.0281). “In-person” means the dentist is physically present in the same room as the patient, so a video visit alone does not qualify (Florida Legislature). Dentists must also give each patient the name, phone number, after-hours contact information for emergencies and license information of every dentist providing their care, or face discipline (Florida Legislature, s. 466.028(1)(nn)).

The bill behind these rules, CS/HB 855, passed the Florida House with 118 yes votes and none against (Florida House staff analysis). House staff wrote that the exam rule only affects dentists treating by telehealth and would have the effect of eliminating direct-to-consumer alignment business models unless those businesses add in-person visits (Florida House staff analysis). The same analysis cites a 2020 user survey (Wexler and colleagues) in which 87.5% of direct-to-consumer aligner users were satisfied with treatment (Florida House staff analysis) and roughly 6 percent had to see an in-person dentist because of adverse effects (Florida House staff analysis). The analysis does not give the survey’s sample size, and staff noted there appears to be no research comparing adverse-outcome rates with in-person orthodontics.

Teledentistry. Florida’s telehealth law lists dentists among telehealth providers and defines telehealth as synchronous or asynchronous telecommunications technology (Florida Legislature, s. 456.47), so live video consults and photo-based remote monitoring both count, while e-mail and fax do not. An ad for dental services delivered by telehealth must carry the line “An in-person examination with a dentist licensed under chapter 466, Florida Statutes, is recommended before beginning telehealth treatment in order to prevent injury or harm” (Florida Legislature, s. 466.019(4)) whenever it offers scans or impressions, mouth-worn appliances, or correcting malformations of teeth or jaws (Florida Legislature).

Orthodontic ads and videos. Florida counts websites and social media as advertising (Florida Legislature, s. 466.019(1)), and the Board of Dentistry’s rule reaches media exposure of any nature, paid or not (Florida Administrative Code, 64B5-4.002), so smile-transformation clips and treatment time-lapses on a practice’s own channels are covered. Ads may not contain laudatory statements about the dentist or create false, unjustified expectations of favorable results (Florida Legislature). Only a dentist who completed a specialty program approved by the American Dental Association and the Commission on Dental Accreditation, and who is eligible for or certified by an ADA-recognized specialty board, may advertise as a specialist such as an orthodontist (Florida Legislature, s. 466.0282). A fee ad must name the exact procedure: listing a category such as orthodontics is not sufficient (Florida Administrative Code, 64B5-4.003), and the advertised fee must hold for a stated period or for at least 90 days after the last ad (Florida Administrative Code). An ad for a free or discounted service, such as a free consultation, must state in capitals that the patient may refuse to pay for any other service performed within 72 hours of responding (Florida Legislature, s. 456.062). The general dental advertising rules are covered on our dental video statistics page.

Which federal rules cover orthodontic testimonials, reviews and patient gag clauses?

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides, in the version republished on July 26, 2023 (eCFR, 16 CFR 255), apply to patient testimonials and before-and-after videos for braces and aligners like any other product. If an advertiser cannot show a patient’s result is typical, the ad should disclose the generally expected performance (eCFR, 16 CFR 255.2(b)). Ads that claim to show actual patients should use them in both the audio and video or say they are not real patients (eCFR, 16 CFR 255.2(c)), and a disclosure in a video should appear in both the visual and audible portions (eCFR, 16 CFR 255.0). FTC staff’s December 2022 health products guidance says health-benefit claims generally need randomized, controlled human clinical testing (FTC, Internet Archive copy), the standard that would apply to a claim such as faster tooth movement.

The FTC’s rule on consumer reviews and testimonials took effect on October 21, 2024 (Federal Register). It bars using an unfounded or groundless legal threat, intimidation or a knowingly false accusation to stop or remove a review (eCFR, 16 CFR 465.7), and knowing violations can draw civil penalties of up to $53,088 each as of November 2026 (eCFR, 16 CFR 1.98). The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 makes a form-contract clause that restricts or penalizes customer reviews void from the inception (U.S. Code via GovInfo, 15 U.S.C. 45b).

The SmileDirectClub settlement. In June 2023 the District of Columbia Attorney General settled the consumer protection suit his office filed in December 2022 against SmileDirectClub, the direct-to-consumer aligner company, which had required almost all customers seeking refunds to sign nondisclosure agreements. The company had to release more than 17,000 consumers across the U.S. from those agreements (DC Attorney General) and pay $500,000 to the District (DC Attorney General). The AG said the agreements made customers delete negative reviews and withdraw complaints to regulators, with fines of $10,000 per violation (DC Attorney General). Under the settlement, SmileDirectClub could require an NDA only from customers represented by a lawyer in litigation or receiving more than $5,000 in refunds, which the AG put at about two and a half times the cost of the aligners (DC Attorney General). The suit was brought under DC’s own consumer protection law, not the federal act.

When do Medicaid and CHIP pay for orthodontic treatment?

Medicaid covers orthodontics only for enrollees under age 21, through its EPSDT children’s benefit (CMS EPSDT guide, 2014), and only when treatment is medically necessary: CMS’s June 2014 guide says states must provide orthodontic services to the extent necessary to prevent disease and promote oral health, and restore oral structures to health and function (CMS), while orthodontics for cosmetic purposes is not covered (CMS). The statute sets the floor for children’s dental care at relief of pain and infections, restoration of teeth and maintenance of dental health (U.S. Code via GovInfo, 42 U.S.C. 1396d(r)(3)), and requires states to cover other necessary treatment for conditions found in screening whether or not such services are covered under the State plan (U.S. Code via GovInfo, 42 U.S.C. 1396d(r)(5)). CMS adds that children’s dental services may not be limited to emergency services (Medicaid.gov, Internet Archive copy), while for adults there are no minimum requirements for dental coverage (Medicaid.gov, Internet Archive copy). Separate CHIP programs must cover dental services needed to prevent disease, restore oral structures and treat emergency conditions (U.S. Code via GovInfo, 42 U.S.C. 1397cc(c)(6)).

In Florida, the Medicaid statute lets the Agency for Health Care Administration pay for children’s dental procedures, including orthodontia in severe cases, for recipients under 21 (Florida Legislature, s. 409.906(6)). For recipients 21 years of age or older, it limits dental care to emergency treatment and dentures, with no orthodontic benefit (Florida Legislature, s. 409.906(1)). The detailed criteria sit in AHCA’s Dental Services Coverage Policy, incorporated in Rule 59G-4.060, whose current version took effect on 9/24/2018 (Florida Department of State).

What do the popular orthodontic numbers really say?

Orthodontic practice websites, insurers, aligner companies and marketing vendors repeat a few numbers about braces more than any others. We traced four of them to the press release, survey or vendor page that produced them and read what each one measured. Most come from the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO), whose members sell orthodontic treatment, or from Align Technology, which makes Invisalign. Pages that repeat a number are linked only as dated evidence of how it spread, never as a source for the number itself.

“4 million Americans wear braces” (and “1 in 4 orthodontic patients is an adult”)

The figure began as a count of children across North America, and the AAO’s own member surveys now put far more people in treatment. In July 2002 the Lawrence Journal-World wrote that, according to the AAO, about 4.5 million Americans had braces and about 20 percent were older than 18 (Lawrence Journal-World). In 2005 the FAQ on the AAO website, as quoted by the trade magazine Orthodontic Products, said “One in five orthodontic patients is an adult” and put adults in treatment in the United States and Canada at nearly 1,000,000 (Orthodontic Products). An AAO release of January 7, 2008 then said more than 4 million children in North America wore braces, with adults counted separately (Orthodontic Products). That 4 million was children only, and it included Canada.

The AAO’s numbers come from its Economics of Orthodontics and Patient Census survey, which asks members in the U.S. and Canada about their own patients and scales the answers up to the membership. For 2012 the AAO counted 5,876,000 patients in treatment with its members (AAO release, archived), including a record 1,225,850 patients aged 18 and older (AAO release, archived) and 4,650,150 aged 17 or under, in a survey run for the AAO by Loyalty Research Center (Orthodontic Products). Its 2019 summary estimated 1.61 million adults in treatment in the United States in 2018 (AAO) and said 33% of all patients in responding practices were adults (AAO). For 2022 the AAO estimated about 5.51 million patients across the U.S. and Canada (AAO), with U.S. members treating about 3.15 million patients aged 8 to 17 (AAO), or about 7.4% of U.S. children that age (AAO). For 2024 it estimated 6.66 million patients in the U.S. and Canada and 1.91 million U.S. adults, from 635 member surveys. These counts cover AAO members’ patients only. They leave out general dentists’ aligner patients and mail-order aligner customers.

The round number came back on the AAO’s own pages. By March 2023 its homepage said “4M people in the U.S need or already have braces”, a line missing from the December 2022 capture (AAO, archived). The live homepage still says 4M, with no source or year (AAO). The line mixes people who need braces with people who have them, so it is neither a treatment count nor a need estimate. The AAO’s press room says an estimated 3.9 million children are orthodontic patients in the U.S. and that One out of three orthodontic patients are adults (AAO). Its adult orthodontics page said “1 in 4 orthodontic patients are adults” in February 2023 (AAO, archived) and says 1 in 3 now (AAO). Humana, a dental insurer, cites the AAO homepage for an estimated 4 million people in the U.S. who need or already have braces (Humana). In September 2022 AARP, crediting Humana, wrote that more than 4 million Americans wear braces and 25 percent of them are adults (AARP). By then “need or already have” had become “wear”.

Use instead: the AAO’s latest member census, 6.66 million patients in the U.S. and Canada and 1.91 million U.S. adults in 2024, labelled as AAO estimates for members’ patients from 635 survey responses. For the adult share, give the 33% of respondents’ patients with its year, 2018.

“75% of people could benefit from orthodontic treatment” (or “have some malocclusion”)

The number is the top of an AAO range that cites no study, and the national exam data behind the malocclusion version measured something narrower. The AAO’s January 2008 release said it is estimated that 50% to 75% of the population could benefit from orthodontic treatment (Orthodontic Products). The AAO press room still prints the top of the range in large type over the text “An estimated 50-75% of people could benefit from orthodontic treatment” (AAO). Repeats keep only the top of the range. Candid, an aligner company that sells to dentists, says an estimated 75% of Americans could benefit, naming no source (Candid). A November 2022 Dental Products Report article said 75% would benefit from treatment and footnoted it to a 1996 paper on the national exam survey whose abstract contains no such figure (Dental Products Report).

That paper, Brunelle, Bhat and Lipton’s analysis of NHANES III (1988-1991), found only 25% of people aged 8 to 50 had zero mm of malalignment in the upper front teeth. So 75% had at least some measurable irregularity (our calculation), which is a measurement, not a need for treatment. Using the same survey, Proffit, Fields and Moray (1998) found 35% of adults had well-aligned lower front teeth and 57% to 59% of each racial or ethnic group had at least some degree of treatment need on the Index of Treatment Need. The AAO homepage line that 65% of adults do not have well-aligned front teeth (AAO) is the complement of Proffit’s 35% (65%, our calculation), but Proffit measured lower incisors only, in 1988-1991.

Use instead: say NHANES III found 57% to 59% of each racial or ethnic group examined had some orthodontic treatment need, and give the survey years. NIH notes the last national U.S. check of malocclusion in children ran from 1988 to 1991, so no current national figure exists.

“Video on a landing page lifts conversions by 80%”

The figure is a best case from one video vendor, EyeView, in 2009-2010, about financial and tutoring websites, not dentistry. EyeView’s blog first reported that eToro visitors who watched its video were 20% more likely to download the product (December 2008) (EyeView, archived). In February 2009 it said UMOO viewers were 80% more likely to become depositing users, comparing viewers with non-viewers for one client (EyeView, archived), and in November 2009 it quoted a TutorVista manager on a first test that lifted conversion by over 80 percent (EyeView, archived). Its 2010 white paper said only that “in some cases” the boost was over 80% (EyeView white paper, archived), and the one test it described, the eToro split test, was now almost 32 percent (EyeView white paper, archived).

The scope fell away in repeats. By August 2010 Unbounce, a landing-page software seller, wrote that video on landing pages can increase conversion by 80% (Unbounce, archived), and WordStream, a pay-per-click software seller, repeated 80% in March 2016, crediting “EyeWideDigital” (WordStream). Healthcare marketing carried it on: Nucleus Medical Media listed 80% in 2018, credited to Eyeview Digital (Nucleus Medical Media), and Practice Builders, which markets medical and dental practices, wrote 80 percent in a 2018 white paper, crediting a different video producer (Practice Builders). Dental marketing sellers passed it to dental practices. A November 2017 DentistryIQ column by the founder of a dental marketing firm said a dedicated landing-page video can increase conversion rates by 80%, credited it to HubSpot, and told practices to build such pages for Invisalign (DentistryIQ). WEO Marketly, a dental marketing company, wrote in July 2018 that landing-page video can lift conversions by 80% or more, linking to EyeView’s homepage rather than a study (WEO Marketly). We found no dental or orthodontic practice test behind the figure.

The larger later evidence points the other way. Unbounce’s own 2021 analysis of about 35,000 customer landing pages in each of three periods (Unbounce) concluded that video appears to have a minimal or negative impact on landing-page performance regardless of the conversion goal (Unbounce). Use instead: do not cite a conversion lift for orthodontic video; say Unbounce’s 2021 study of 35,000 pages found video had a minimal or negative effect, and judge a practice’s video by its own consultation requests.

“People with straight teeth are 58% more likely to be seen as successful”

The figure comes from a 2012 survey paid for by Invisalign’s maker, and it measured snap judgments of photographs. In an April 19, 2012 release, Align Technology’s Invisalign brand said a Kelton perception study of 1,047 Americans showed respondents images of people with straight and crooked teeth without telling them what was being compared (Invisalign release). People with straight teeth were seen as 58% more likely to be successful, the same margin the study gave for being wealthy (Invisalign release), and 45% more likely to get a job against a similarly qualified rival (Invisalign release). Separately, 73% of respondents said they would be more likely to trust someone with a nice smile than someone with a good job, outfit or car (Invisalign release). The release gives no field dates or margin of error, and Kelton’s breakout report has no readable archive copy.

Repeats moved the numbers between questions. A Houston orthodontic practice’s blog said in July 2016 that people with straight teeth have a 58% better chance of getting a job, crediting an Invisalign infographic (Advance Orthodontics); the job figure was 45%. In July 2017 the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Dental Family Practice listed people with straight teeth as 73% more likely to be considered trustworthy (Penn Dental Family Practice), turning a share of respondents into a likelihood.

Use instead: if you cite it, say that in a 2012 survey for Invisalign’s maker, 1,047 Americans rating photos judged people with straight teeth 58% more likely to be successful. Do not present it as evidence about hiring, pay or careers.

Every popular claim our research pages trace, 816 in all, is on one page: popular video statistics, fact-checked.

How we built this page

We started from the questions people search for about orthodontist video statistics and looked for the organization that actually produced each answer. Every figure on this page sits in an evidence ledger with its source, the exact table or paragraph it came from, the measurement period, the population measured, and the date we checked it. This edition holds 515 figures from 66 publishers.

On November 7, 2026, each sourced figure on this page was re-fetched with the fetch cache cleared and matched against the recorded wording: BLS occupation wage estimates and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (through the BLS data API and data files) and Employment Projections and older wage pages (through Internet Archive copies, because bls.gov refuses automated requests); the 2022 Economic Census, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics and the Annual Integrated Economic Survey (through the Census data API); the ADA Health Policy Institute’s workforce, education and FAQ pages, the American Board of Orthodontics and the American Association of Orthodontists’ own pages and survey summaries, and the Florida Department of Health’s dentist workforce reports; NIDCR’s Oral Health in America report, AHRQ’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey publications and a CDC page (an Internet Archive copy); SEC filings on EDGAR; eCFR, the FDA product classification database and openFDA, the 2026 Florida Statutes, the Florida Administrative Code, the Florida House bill analysis, the District of Columbia Attorney General, FTC rules and guidance, the U.S. Code and CMS Medicaid guidance (Internet Archive copies); YouTube and Google Ads help pages; journal abstracts (PubMed pages, re-read through NCBI’s E-utilities because the pages answer scripts with a bot check); and the pages behind each popular claim, many through dated Internet Archive copies. Our YouTube figures come from the YouTube Data API and our filing counts from EDGAR full-text search. We left out ahrq.gov and the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration’s site (robots rules that bar AI agents; AHCA’s Medicaid dental coverage policy is a Word file our checker cannot read), Business Wire and Becker’s Dental (they refuse scripts), the AAO’s PDF files (its robots rules close them to every crawler), and the ADA’s spreadsheet tables (cross-checked, not cited).

We only cite the producer: government agencies, regulators, company filings and official posts, and the survey owner's own report. We do not cite statistics roundups, Statista-style aggregators, or salary sites without a public method. We did not bypass paywalls or sign-up forms; where a full report was gated, we used only the figures its publisher states publicly.

Figures marked "our calculation" are arithmetic on the cited numbers, and anyone can reproduce them:

This edition contains no Mark Studios customer data.

Limitations

• Orthodontist counts differ by source. BLS counts 6,210 wage-and-salary orthodontist jobs, which leaves out owners of unincorporated practices; its projections put the occupation at 7.1 thousand jobs with the self-employed; the ADA Health Policy Institute counts 10,844 professionally active dentists in orthodontics, counting a dentist in every specialty they hold; Florida’s survey counts certifications reported by dentists who answer it. We print them side by side rather than pick one.
• Dental-office figures are not orthodontic-practice figures. BLS and Census count orthodontic practices inside offices of dentists (NAICS 621210), shared with general and other specialist dentists, and the Economic Census orthodontics line counts orthodontic revenue reported by any dental office. BLS published no 2025 orthodontist wage for Florida and no estimate for the Miami or Port St. Lucie metro areas.
• National malocclusion data are old. The last national U.S. exam survey of malocclusion ran from 1988 to 1991; later treatment figures come from household surveys and studies of specific groups.
• Our YouTube read follows YouTube’s ranking. The 490 videos are what YouTube’s search returned for ‘orthodontist’, ‘braces’ and ‘Invisalign’ (the top 200 results of each, sorted by views, with no country filter) on November 7, 2026. It is not a census of orthodontic video, view counts are lifetime snapshots, and we sorted 244 channels by hand from their public text without checking licences or board certification. We do not name patients.
• Study results come from specific settings. Each content study sampled the top results for one platform and topic on one date and defined “orthodontist” its own way; many were small or run outside the U.S.
• Association and company figures are their own. The AAO’s patient counts scale up answers from a small share of its members (6.6% in 2025), the ADA and AAO represent the profession, and Align Technology’s and Invisalign’s figures come from the company and a survey it paid for. Each is labelled.

How to cite this page

For a single figure, cite the original publisher named next to it, and link here if the verification trail is useful to your readers. Each figure has its own anchor, so you can link straight to it, for example https://www.markstudios.com/research/orthodontist-video-statistics#DRV-212. To cite the page as a whole:

Mark Studios. "Orthodontist Video Statistics." Last verified Nov 7, 2026. https://www.markstudios.com/research/orthodontist-video-statistics

@misc{markstudios_orthodontist_video_statistics_2026,
  author = {{Mark Studios}},
  title = {{Orthodontist Video Statistics}},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  url = {https://www.markstudios.com/research/orthodontist-video-statistics},
  note = {Last verified 2026-11-07}
}

Our calculations and the evidence table are free to reuse with attribution and a link to this page. Each underlying figure remains the claim of its original publisher, and some publishers ask for a link when their figures are reused.

Sources

Download the evidence table (CSV)

1. The Angle Orthodontist (Guo et al.), Quantitative and qualitative analyses of orthodontic-related videos on YouTube (Angle Orthod 2020;90(3):411-418) (2020-05-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
2. The Angle Orthodontist (Ustdal & Guney), YouTube as a source of information about orthodontic clear aligners (Angle Orthod 2020;90(3):419-424) (2020-05-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
3. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Meade et al.), Orthodontic retention and retainers: Quality of information provided by dental professionals on YouTube (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158(2):229-236) (2020-06-29). Accessed 2026-11-07.
4. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Sezici et al.), Is YouTube an adequate patient resource about orthodontic retention? A cross-sectional analysis of content and quality (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2022;161(1):e72-e79) (2021-09-09). Accessed 2026-11-07.
5. Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Kılınç), Is the information about orthodontics on Youtube and TikTok reliable for the oral health of the public? A cross sectional comparative study (J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022;123(5):e349-e354) (2022-04-22). Accessed 2026-11-07.
6. International Orthodontics (Meade, Meade & Dreyer), Orthodontic clear aligners and TikTok videos: A content, reliability and quality analysis (Int Orthod 2022;20(3):100663) (2022-07-16). Accessed 2026-11-07.
7. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists (Meade & Dreyer), Analysis of the information contained within TikTok videos regarding orthodontic retention (J World Fed Orthod 2022;11(5):170-175) (2022-07-21). Accessed 2026-11-07.
8. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Ozturk & Gumus), YouTube as an information and education source for early orthodontic treatment (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2022;162(3):e123-e132) (2022-07-11). Accessed 2026-11-07.
9. The Angle Orthodontist (Tamošiūnaitė et al.), Does YouTube provide adequate information about orthodontic pain? (Angle Orthod 2023;93(4):403-408) (2023-07-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
10. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics (Singh et al.), Evaluation of scientific quality of YouTube video content related to orthodontic pain management (Dental Press J Orthod 2023;28(5):e232386) (2023-11-03). Accessed 2026-11-07.
11. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics (Cesur et al.), Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Created by Orthodontists as an Information Source for Clear Aligners (Turk J Orthod 2024;37(1):44-49) (2024-03-28). Accessed 2026-11-07.
12. BMC Oral Health (Bozkurt et al.), Choose your side in orthognathic surgery: YouTube or TikTok (BMC Oral Health 2026;26(1)) (2026-03-09). Accessed 2026-11-07.
13. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Pierse et al.), An evaluation of TikTok videos as a source of information for orthognathic surgery (Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2025;63(5):363-367) (2025-03-20). Accessed 2026-11-07.
14. The Angle Orthodontist (Alkadhimi et al.), The nature and accuracy of Instagram posts concerning marketed orthodontic products (Angle Orthod 2022;92(2):247-254) (2022-03-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
15. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research (Abdelemam et al.), #clearaligners and social media: An in-depth analysis of clear aligners' content on Instagram (Orthod Craniofac Res 2024;27(2):259-266) (2023-10-19). Accessed 2026-11-07.
16. International Journal of Dentistry (Jathanna et al.), Exploring Adult Orthodontic Trends on Instagram: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study of Content, Engagement, and Perceptions (Int J Dent 2025:3508818) (2025-11-20). Accessed 2026-11-07.
17. Digital Health (AlSuhabani et al.), Quality and accuracy of clear aligner Arabic information on Instagram: A content-based analysis (Digit Health 2025;11:20552076251393362) (2025-11-03). Accessed 2026-11-07.
18. The Angle Orthodontist (Hong et al.), Orthodontic-related posts on Instagram: are they evidence based? (Angle Orthod 2026) (2026-07-29). Accessed 2026-11-07.
19. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Hunsaker et al.), A comparison of patient testimonials on YouTube of the most common orthodontic treatment modalities: Braces, in-office aligners, and direct-to-consumer aligners (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2022;161(3):355-363.e3) (2021-11-11). Accessed 2026-11-07.
20. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research (Meade et al.), A Scoping Review of the Quality of Orthodontic Information on YouTube (Orthod Craniofac Res 2025;28(4):605-626) (2025-02-28). Accessed 2026-11-07.
21. BMC Oral Health (Liengjohor et al.), Patient perspective regarding the role of social media, offline reputation, and practitioner characteristics in orthodontist selection: a cross-sectional study (BMC Oral Health 2026;26(1)) (2026-07-24). Accessed 2026-11-07.
22. The Angle Orthodontist (Diniz et al.), Influence of social media on the choice of orthodontist and different types of orthodontic treatment (Angle Orthod 2026;96(1):68-74) (2025-08-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
23. Cureus (Patil et al.), Is Social Media Influencing Patients to Choose Aligner Treatment? (Cureus 2025;17(6):e86523) (2025-06-22). Accessed 2026-11-07.
24. Journal of Orthodontics (Siddiqui et al.), Social media and orthodontics: Are our patients scrolling? (J Orthod 2022;49(2):179-184) (2021-09-06). Accessed 2026-11-07.
25. Dentistry Journal (Lappas et al.), The Impact of Orthodontic-Related Social Media Content on Patients' Willingness to Initiate Treatment: A Systematic Review (Dent J (Basel) 2026;14(5)) (2026-05-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
26. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Shqaidef et al.), A comparative assessment of information recall and comprehension between conventional leaflets and an animated video in adolescent patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021;160(1):11-18.e1) (2021-04-24). Accessed 2026-11-07.
27. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Al-Silwadi et al.), Effect of social media in improving knowledge among patients having fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: A single-center randomized controlled trial (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148(2):231-7) (2015-08-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
28. International Orthodontics (Ali, Sukhia & Fida), A comparison of three different modalities in improving oral hygiene in adult orthodontic patients - An open label randomized controlled trial (Int Orthod 2022;20(3):100669) (2022-07-30). Accessed 2026-11-07.
29. International Journal of Dental Hygiene (Lee et al.), Effectiveness of Video-Based Oral Hygiene Education Reinforcement During Fixed Orthodontic Treatment in Adults: A Randomised Clinical Trial (Int J Dent Hyg 2026;24(2):226-236) (2025-11-23). Accessed 2026-11-07.
30. Progress in Orthodontics (Abu Arqub et al.), Perceptions and utilization of tele-orthodontics: a survey of the members of the American Association of Orthodontists (Prog Orthod 2024;25(1):16) (2024-05-06). Accessed 2026-11-07.
31. BMC Oral Health (Logan et al.), Orthodontists' use of remote monitoring platforms pre-, amid, and post-COVID-19: a survey study (BMC Oral Health 2024;24(1):480) (2024-04-20). Accessed 2026-11-07.
32. Journal of Orthodontics (Sangalli et al.), Effectiveness of dental monitoring system in orthodontics: A systematic review (J Orthod 2024;51(1):28-40) (2023-06-05). Accessed 2026-11-07.
33. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Lam et al.), Comparative assessment of treatment efficiency and patient experience between Dental Monitoring and conventional monitoring of clear aligner therapy: A single-center randomized controlled trial (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2023;163(4):456-464) (2023-04-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
34. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Hansa et al.), Outcomes of clear aligner treatment with and without Dental Monitoring: A retrospective cohort study (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021;159(4):453-459) (2021-02-08). Accessed 2026-11-07.
35. European Journal of Orthodontics (Milosevic et al.), The use of teleorthodontics and artificial intelligence for orthodontic triage and screening in a publicly funded healthcare system: A crossover randomized controlled trial (Eur J Orthod 2026;48(4)) (2026-06-02). Accessed 2026-11-07.
36. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Griffeth et al.), Patient perspectives on teledentistry and face-to-face doctor interaction during orthodontic treatment (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2023;163(3):328-337) (2022-11-19). Accessed 2026-11-07.
37. The Journal of the American Dental Association (Wexler et al.), Direct-to-consumer orthodontics: surveying the user experience (J Am Dent Assoc 2020;151(8):625-636.e4) (2020-08-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
38. European Journal of Orthodontics (Alhafi et al.), Quality and stability of orthodontic treatment outcomes with clear aligners versus fixed appliances: a systematic review and meta-analysis (Eur J Orthod 2025;47(6)) (2025-10-16). Accessed 2026-11-07.
39. American Dental Association Health Policy Institute (ADA is the dental profession's trade association), 2026 U.S. Dentist Workforce (ADA HPI slide deck) (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-07.
40. American Dental Association Health Policy Institute (ADA is the dental profession's trade association), Dentist Workforce (ADA Health Policy Institute) - Dentist workforce FAQs (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
41. American Dental Association Health Policy Institute (ADA is the dental profession's trade association), Trends in Advanced Education in Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Programs in the U.S. (December 2021) (2021-12). Accessed 2026-11-07.
42. American Dental Association Health Policy Institute (ADA is the dental profession's trade association), Dental School Grads and Advanced Program Enrollment by Gender, 2023-24 (ADA HPI infographic) (2024-11). Accessed 2026-11-07.
43. American Board of Orthodontics (the specialty's certifying board), Become Certified - American Board of Orthodontics (undated). Accessed 2026-11-07.
44. American Board of Orthodontics (the specialty's certifying board), December 2025 Results: Newly Certified and Recertified Orthodontists (2026-01-30). Accessed 2026-11-07.
45. American Board of Orthodontics (the specialty's certifying board), Leading The Way, Together - American Board of Orthodontics (undated). Accessed 2026-11-07.
46. Florida Department of Health, Public Health Dental Program, 2023-2024 Workforce Survey of Dentists (Florida Department of Health) (2026-02-11). Accessed 2026-11-07.
47. Florida Department of Health, Public Health Dental Program, 2019-2020 Workforce Survey of Dentists (Florida Department of Health) (2023-03-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
48. American Association of Orthodontists (the specialty's trade association), Member Survey Indicates Orthodontic Patient Numbers at All-Time High (2025-07-09). Accessed 2026-11-07.
49. American Association of Orthodontists (the specialty's trade association), Economics of Orthodontics Survey Results Highlight Specialty Trends (2019-09-18). Accessed 2026-11-07.
50. Health Affairs (Nasseh, LoSasso & Vujicic, American Dental Association and DePaul University), Percentage Of Dentists And Dental Practices Affiliated With Private Equity Nearly Doubled, 2015-21 (2024-08). Accessed 2026-11-07.
51. Health Services Research (Nasseh, LoSasso, Vujicic & Downey, ADA Health Policy Institute, DePaul University and IQVIA), Financial Incisors: Cutting Through the Effects of Private Equity on Dentistry Market Dynamics and Care Delivery (2025-12-10). Accessed 2026-11-07.
52. American Association of Orthodontists (the specialty's trade association), About the AAO - American Association of Orthodontists (undated). Accessed 2026-11-07.
53. American Association of Orthodontists (the specialty's trade association), Orthodontic Landscape Consumer Study Examines Patient Marketplace (2025-03-12). Accessed 2026-11-07.
54. YouTube (Google), Apply to be a source in YouTube health features - YouTube Help (undated). Accessed 2026-11-07.
55. YouTube (Google), New ways for licensed healthcare professionals to reach people on YouTube - YouTube Blog (2022-10-27). Accessed 2026-11-07.
56. Google Ads (Google), Personalized advertising - Advertising Policies Help (undated). Accessed 2026-11-07.
57. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
58. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 1.2 Occupational projections, 2025–35, and worker characteristics, 2025 (2026-08-27). Accessed 2026-11-07.
59. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
60. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
61. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
62. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
63. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
64. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
65. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
66. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
67. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
68. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
69. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023: 29-1023 Orthodontists (2024-04-03). Accessed 2026-11-07.
70. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
71. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
72. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2023 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: Florida (2024-04-03). Accessed 2026-11-07.
73. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census: Summary Statistics for the U.S., States, and Selected Geographies: 2022 (Census Data API) (not stated in API response). Accessed 2026-11-07.
74. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns: 2023 (Census Data API) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
75. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics: 2023 (Census Data API) (not stated in API response). Accessed 2026-11-07.
76. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics: 2024 (Census Data API) (2026-03-13). Accessed 2026-11-07.
77. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Integrated Economic Survey: Selected Sectors: Detailed Operating Expenses: 2024 (Census Data API) (not stated in API response). Accessed 2026-11-07.
78. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census: Industry by Products Statistics for the U.S.: 2022 (Census Data API) (not stated in API response). Accessed 2026-11-07.
79. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census: Health Care and Social Assistance: Sales, Value of Shipments, or Revenue by Type of Payer for the U.S.: 2022 (Census Data API) (not stated in API response). Accessed 2026-11-07.
80. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census: Health Care and Social Assistance: Sales, Value of Shipments, or Revenue for Telemedicine Services for the U.S.: 2022 (Census Data API) (not stated in API response). Accessed 2026-11-07.
81. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns: 2023 (Census Data API) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
82. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW Open Data: 2025 annual averages, area 12099 (CSV) (not stated in CSV (2025 annual file)). Accessed 2026-11-07.
83. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW Open Data: 2025 annual averages, area 12011 (CSV) (not stated in CSV (2025 annual file)). Accessed 2026-11-07.
84. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW Open Data: 2025 annual averages, area 12085 (CSV) (not stated in CSV (2025 annual file)). Accessed 2026-11-07.
85. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery (Proffit et al.), Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey (1998). Accessed 2026-11-07.
86. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIH), Oral Health in America: Advances and Challenges (full report), Section 2B: Oral Health Across the Lifespan: Adolescents (2021-12). Accessed 2026-11-07.
87. Journal of Dental Research (Brunelle et al.), Prevalence and distribution of selected occlusal characteristics in the US population, 1988-1991 (1996-02). Accessed 2026-11-07.
88. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry (Lombardo et al.), Worldwide prevalence of malocclusion in the different stages of dentition: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-06). Accessed 2026-11-07.
89. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics (Alhammadi et al.), Global distribution of malocclusion traits: A systematic review (2018-11). Accessed 2026-11-07.
90. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (De Ridder et al.), Prevalence of Orthodontic Malocclusions in Healthy Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review (2022-06-17). Accessed 2026-11-07.
91. Healthcare (Chen et al.), Prevalence of Malocclusion Traits in Primary Dentition, 2010-2024: A Systematic Review (2024-07-02). Accessed 2026-11-07.
92. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Manski et al.), Orthodontic dental visits during 1987 and 1996 (2000-07). Accessed 2026-11-07.
93. Journal of the American Dental Association (Guay & Blatz), The effect of the Great Recession on the demand for general oral health care and orthodontic care (2019-04). Accessed 2026-11-07.
94. Journal of Public Health Dentistry (Okunseri et al.), Racial/ethnic disparities in self-reported pediatric orthodontic visits in the United States (2007). Accessed 2026-11-07.
95. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Whitesides et al.), Socio-demographics of adult orthodontic visits in the United States (2008-04). Accessed 2026-11-07.
96. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (MEPS), Research Findings #38: Dental Services: Use, Expenses, Source of Payment, Coverage and Procedure Type, 1996-2015 (2018). Accessed 2026-11-07.
97. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Laniado et al.), Children's orthodontic utilization in the United States: Socioeconomic and surveillance considerations (2017-11). Accessed 2026-11-07.
98. Dentistry Journal (Hung et al.), Profile of Orthodontic Use across Demographics (2023-12-15). Accessed 2026-11-07.
99. National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), Dental visits - Health, United States (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
100. Academic Pediatrics (Berdahl et al.), Annual Report on Children's Health Care: Dental and Orthodontic Utilization and Expenditures for Children, 2010-2012 (2016-05). Accessed 2026-11-07.
101. BMC Oral Health (Hung et al.), Examination of orthodontic expenditures and trends in the United States from 1996 to 2016: disparities across demographics and insurance payers (2021-05-17). Accessed 2026-11-07.
102. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Tsichlaki et al.), How long does treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances last? A systematic review (2016-03). Accessed 2026-11-07.
103. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (McCall et al.), Impact of Medicaid Expansion on State-Level Medicaid Reimbursement for Orthodontia in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Cost Analysis (2026-02-13). Accessed 2026-11-07.
104. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Merritt et al.), Racial disparities in orthodontic service use for Medicaid-enrolled children: An evaluation of the Washington Medicaid program (2016-04). Accessed 2026-11-07.
105. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Murdock et al.), Break-even analysis of Medicaid vs fee for service in orthodontic practice: North Carolina as a case study (2010-03). Accessed 2026-11-07.
106. Frontiers in Public Health (Martin et al.), Orthodontic Treatment Completion and Discontinuation in a Rural Sample from North Central Appalachia in the USA (2017-07-25). Accessed 2026-11-07.
107. Align Technology, Inc., Align Technology, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-02-27). Accessed 2026-11-07.
108. Align Technology, Inc., Align Technology, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 (2025-02-28). Accessed 2026-11-07.
109. Align Technology, Inc., Align Technology, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (2017-02-28). Accessed 2026-11-07.
110. Align Technology, Inc., Align Technology, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (2020-02-28). Accessed 2026-11-07.
111. Align Technology, Inc., Align Technology, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (2023-02-27). Accessed 2026-11-07.
112. SmileDirectClub, Inc., SmileDirectClub, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 (2021-03-12). Accessed 2026-11-07.
113. SmileDirectClub, Inc., SmileDirectClub, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (2023-02-28). Accessed 2026-11-07.
114. SmileDirectClub, Inc., SmileDirectClub, Inc. Form 8-K (Item 1.03 Bankruptcy or Receivership), filed October 2, 2023 (2023-10-02). Accessed 2026-11-07.
115. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc., DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-02-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
116. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc., DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 (2025-02-27). Accessed 2026-11-07.
117. Envista Holdings Corporation, Envista Holdings Corporation Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-02-12). Accessed 2026-11-07.
118. Dror Ortho-Design, Inc., Dror Ortho-Design, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 (2026-02-27). Accessed 2026-11-07.
119. iCoreConnect Inc., iCoreConnect Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 (2025-05-30). Accessed 2026-11-07.
120. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR Part 872 Subpart F -- Therapeutic Devices (Dental Devices) (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-07.
121. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Product Classification: aligner, sequential (product code NXC) (2026-07-14). Accessed 2026-11-07.
122. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (openFDA device 510(k) API), openFDA device/510k endpoint, product code NXC (Aligner, Sequential) (2026-10-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
123. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (openFDA device 510(k) API), openFDA device/510k endpoint, product code NXC (Aligner, Sequential) (2026-10-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
124. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (openFDA device 510(k) API), openFDA device/510k endpoint, product code NXC (Aligner, Sequential) (2026-10-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
125. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (openFDA device 510(k) API), openFDA device/510k endpoint, product code NXC (Aligner, Sequential) (2026-10-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
126. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (openFDA device 510(k) API), openFDA device/510k endpoint, product code NXC (Aligner, Sequential) (2026-10-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
127. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (openFDA device 510(k) API), openFDA device/510k endpoint, product code NXC (Aligner, Sequential) (2026-10-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
128. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (openFDA device 510(k) API), openFDA device/510k endpoint, product code NXC (Aligner, Sequential) (2026-10-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
129. Florida House of Representatives (staff final bill analysis), House of Representatives Staff Final Bill Analysis, CS/HB 855 Dental Services (2024) (2024-06-24). Accessed 2026-11-07.
130. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 466.0281 Initial examination for orthodontic appliance (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
131. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 466.028 Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
132. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 456.47 Use of telehealth to provide services (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
133. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 466.019 Advertising by dentists (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
134. Florida Department of State (Florida Administrative Code; Board of Dentistry rule), Rule 64B5-4.002 Advertising and Soliciting by Dentists (rule text) (2026-09-24). Accessed 2026-11-07.
135. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 466.0282 Specialties (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
136. Florida Department of State (Florida Administrative Code; Board of Dentistry rule), Rule 64B5-4.003 Advertisement of Fees and Discounted Services (rule text) (1992-03-11). Accessed 2026-11-07.
137. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 456.062 Advertisement by a health care practitioner of free or discounted services; required statement (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
138. Federal Trade Commission (via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 16 CFR Part 255 Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (2023-07-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
139. Federal Trade Commission (staff guidance), Health Products Compliance Guidance (December 2022) (2022-12). Accessed 2026-11-07.
140. Federal Trade Commission (Federal Register), Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (2024-08-22). Accessed 2026-11-07.
141. Federal Trade Commission (via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 16 CFR Part 465 Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (2024-08-22). Accessed 2026-11-07.
142. Federal Trade Commission (via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 16 CFR 1.98 Adjustment of civil monetary penalty amounts (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
143. U.S. Government Publishing Office (United States Code, 2023 edition), 15 U.S.C. 45b - Consumer review protection (2024). Accessed 2026-11-07.
144. Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, AG Schwalb Announces SmileDirectClub Must Release Consumers Nationwide From Restrictive Nondisclosure Agreements (2023-06-22). Accessed 2026-11-07.
145. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, EPSDT: A Guide for States: Coverage in the Medicaid Benefit for Children and Adolescents (June 2014) (2014-06). Accessed 2026-11-07.
146. U.S. Government Publishing Office (United States Code, 2023 edition), 42 U.S.C. 1396d - Definitions (Medicaid) (2024). Accessed 2026-11-07.
147. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicaid.gov: Dental Care (2026-05). Accessed 2026-11-07.
148. U.S. Government Publishing Office (United States Code, 2023 edition), 42 U.S.C. 1397cc - Coverage requirements for children's health insurance (CHIP) (2024). Accessed 2026-11-07.
149. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 409.906 Optional Medicaid services (2026). Accessed 2026-11-07.
150. Florida Department of State (Florida Administrative Code; Agency for Health Care Administration rule), Rule 59G-4.060 Dental Services (2018-09-24). Accessed 2026-11-07.
151. Lawrence Journal-World (newspaper, Lawrence, Kansas), Brace yourself (2002-07-11). Accessed 2026-11-07.
152. Orthodontic Products (trade magazine), quoting the AAO website FAQ, One in a Million (2005-10-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
153. American Association of Orthodontists release, as published by Orthodontic Products (trade magazine), Survey Finds Most Orthodontists Have Had Orthodontic Treatment (2008-01-08). Accessed 2026-11-07.
154. American Association of Orthodontists (professional association whose members sell orthodontic treatment), Adults Say Healthy, Beautiful Smiles Transform Lives (AAO press release) (2013-10-16). Accessed 2026-11-07.
155. Orthodontic Products (trade magazine), reporting the AAO survey, AAO Study Finds Adults are Seeking Orthodontic Treatment in Record Numbers (2013-10-30). Accessed 2026-11-07.
156. American Association of Orthodontists (professional association whose members sell orthodontic treatment), AAO Economics of Orthodontics Survey Report: Patient Data Similar to Pre-COVID Reports; Growth in DSO/OSO Employment (2023-09-13). Accessed 2026-11-07.
157. American Association of Orthodontists (professional association whose members sell orthodontic treatment), American Association of Orthodontists homepage ('The Passionate Pursuit of Healthy Smiles') (2023-03-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
158. American Association of Orthodontists (professional association whose members sell orthodontic treatment), American Association of Orthodontists homepage ('The Passionate Pursuit of Healthy Smiles') (Not stated (live page)). Accessed 2026-11-07.
159. American Association of Orthodontists (professional association whose members sell orthodontic treatment), AAO Press Room (2025-02-03). Accessed 2026-11-07.
160. American Association of Orthodontists (professional association whose members sell orthodontic treatment), Adult Orthodontics | American Association of Orthodontists (2023-02-08). Accessed 2026-11-07.
161. American Association of Orthodontists (professional association whose members sell orthodontic treatment), Adult Orthodontics: Smile with Confidence at Any Age | American Association of Orthodontists (2026-09-30). Accessed 2026-11-07.
162. Humana (health and dental insurer), Does Dental Insurance Cover Braces? | Humana (2026-05-20). Accessed 2026-11-07.
163. AARP (membership organization; health journalism), More Adults Are Getting Braces (2022-09-30). Accessed 2026-11-07.
164. Candid (CandidPro clear-aligner seller), The Million Dollar Practice: Dr. Skinner's Approach to Growing Your Practice with CandidPro (Not stated). Accessed 2026-11-07.
165. Dental Products Report (MJH Life Sciences dental trade magazine; article by Laura Dorr), Identifying Patients for Ortho Treatment (2022-11-01). Accessed 2026-11-07.
166. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), EyeView - The new "Conversion" game (2008-12-04). Accessed 2026-11-07.
167. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), UMOO - a prime beef example of EyeView's success (2009-02-10). Accessed 2026-11-07.
168. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), Another video conversion success story (2009-11-10). Accessed 2026-11-07.
169. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), Making Video Accountable (EyeView white paper) (2010). Accessed 2026-11-07.
170. Unbounce (landing-page software seller), The benefits of using video on landing pages (2010-08). Accessed 2026-11-07.
171. WordStream (PPC advertising software seller), 6 Ways to Use Video to Increase Conversion Rates (2016-03-30). Accessed 2026-11-07.
172. Nucleus Medical Media (healthcare video producer; sells the videos it describes), Current Trends: Healthcare Video Usage on the Web (2018-03-13). Accessed 2026-11-07.
173. Practice Builders (marketing firm selling to medical and dental practices), Video Marketing white paper (2018-03-03). Accessed 2026-11-07.
174. DentistryIQ (Endeavor Business Media dental trade site; column by Sean Hamel, Grow Practice Grow Dental Marketing, a dental marketing seller), Simplifying dental video marketing (2017-11-28). Accessed 2026-11-07.
175. WEO Marketly (dental marketing seller), Dental Video Marketing: Expert Tips + Resources (2018-07-30). Accessed 2026-11-07.
176. Unbounce (landing-page software seller; analysis of its own customers' pages), Video on landing pages means more conversions, right? Wrong. Here's why (2021-08-26). Accessed 2026-11-07.
177. Align Technology / Invisalign (clear-aligner maker; release via PR Newswire), First Impressions Are Everything: New Study Confirms People With Straight Teeth Are Perceived as More Successful, Smarter and Having More Dates (2012-04-19). Accessed 2026-11-07.
178. Advance Orthodontics (orthodontic practice, Houston; post by Dr. John Karotkin), First Impressions are Everything | Advance Orthodontics Blog (2016-07-22). Accessed 2026-11-07.
179. Penn Dental Family Practice (University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine faculty practice), Why Tooth Straightening Will Make You Smile Again (2017-07-21). Accessed 2026-11-07.

Update policy and change log

We re-verify every figure quarterly and when a major source publishes a new edition. The next scheduled review is February 2027. Corrections go to contact@markstudios.com.

• Nov 7, 2026: First published with 515 figures from 66 publishers, each checked against its original source.