Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 00:16:00 -0500
From: "ESCO automatic digest system" <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Subject: ESCO Digest - 8 May 2007 to 11 May 2007 (#2007-47)

There are 2 messages totalling 183 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Orthocad IQ
2. OrthoCAD


Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 11:19:24 -0400
From: "Robert H. Kazmierski, D.M.D." <str8teeth1@VERIZON.NET>
Subject: Orthocad IQ

Dear John,

I have done several cases with Orthocad. In my opinion, it is a great idea with an immature technology. In the long run it shows great promise and may likely be how we all end up putting our braces on. However, at the current time there are several shortcomings that were insurmountable for me. Please accept that the following is just my opinion. 1st When I last used the system (and I don't think this aspect has changed), the system was programmed to show the torque in the bracket without regards to either extreme in torque. The same bracket with the same size wire would always show the same amount of torque in the tooth regardless of the situation. What does that translate out to mean? It means that an Orthocad treatment projection showed the same ending incisor torque for an extraction and a non-extraction case. For example, with a given wire size and bracket prescription it will not show the decreased incisor torque likely with extraction treatment and the increased torque likely from non-extraction treatment. In my opinion, this greatly decreases the systems usefulness in helping to decide between treatment options. It makes it inaccurate for torque predictions and therefore bracket type and placement decisions. 2nd My experience was that the marginal ridge heights were significantly off after having achieved my final archwire size and much rebonding and wire bending was necessary to compensate for this. 3rd The system does not take into account actual anatomic root position. To be fair, until it is linked to the new cone beam 3d radiographic systems, I do not think that they will be able to do this. They will tell you to send in a copy of your pan, but this did not help for me. When my full sized wire was placed and an update panoramic radiograph taken, my root positions were too frequently off. Again, much rebonding for position was needed to compensate for this. If you proceed, my suggestion would be to try several cases (is 8 or 12 the minimum number that they will let you sign up for?) but not commit your whole practice to it before you see the results of those first cases 12 to 18 months later. Then decide if their system is an improvement on your bracket positioning or if you are able to do it better yourself.

Best of Luck,
Rob Kazmierski
Moorestown, NJ


Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 08:19:21 EDT
From: "Diane Johnson" <DHMJDDS@AOL.COM>
Subject: OrthoCAD

We have been using OrthoCAD for almost two years now.  We are very happy with the service--we were not doing indirect bonding previously, so the training for the staff was critical.  We are using it on fewer cases (as a percentage of all strap-ups) than we did originally.  It really is not as useful unless the second molars are erupted.  The setups make finishing significantly easier.  For surgical cases we have found it to be a godsend (you get to set up the teeth and therefore the bracket positions with the final result planned, which was extremely difficult to do before). The price of $200-$225 a case is very reasonable, especially compared to SureSmile.  Anyone doing SureSmile?  (Barry, are you out there?) I am thinking about doing the Insignia training; is anyone using this system yet?  Hey, you can use it with Damon brackets!!!  Tee hee.

Diane Johnson