Talk:Invisalign
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Antitrust lawsuit
Not remotely in my field of interest, but the antitrust litigation ought to be mentioned in the history. See [1], [2] Tearlach 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] References
It seems that a lot of information was present, but none of it was refenced. I'm guessing the anonymous ip address that keeps working on this page is an employee of Align Tech, Inc and they know these things, but they still must be cited.
Also the less we can make it read like the brochure you pick up in the dentist's office the better. Jonnyct 00:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jonnyct...I'm sure the info is true, but can we make this sound less like an advertisement? "Some treatements as low as..." and things such as that. lemboy4 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added a reference to a good review of the actual evidence about this system. Hopefully this will make the article sound less like an ad and not be taken away by the employees of the company --Vannin 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disadvantages
If there is an "Advantages" section, then a disadvantages section should be added to avoid the appearance of a commercial for Invisalign. Just my opinion. Wilsonbond 17:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is so little discussion on the discussion pages, when some rather important edits are being made. I noticed that a section on sensitivities had been removed. I put this back in, because it seems rather important information. If there is a reason for taking this out, then I suggest that we discuss it here. --Vannin 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits
Hello Phumber, thank-you for your recent contributions. In Wikipedia it is really important that statements be backed up by references. Can you add supporting references for your contributions? It is really important in this article because there is a risk that it will all sound like an advert and it really has to be neutral. Thanks, and you may want to discuss big additions on the talk page first.--Vannin (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Costs
I notice that the UK price has been changed. Does anyone have a reference for this? Dentists in the UK seem to be giving a range of 3000 to 6000 pounds [[3]] so I'm wondering if the fee from invisalign should be 2800 pounds rather than dollars and whether there is any support for this?--Vannin (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] time frame
I've removed the statement about a known time frame - this is contradicted by information from the invisalign review, [[4]] which states that only an estimate can be given as there are too many unknowns.--Vannin (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Visibility
In the article it is stated that although the braces are advertised as invisible, they are in fact not. I must disagree with that. I currently have braces for both arches, and I swear that nobody has been able to tell that I actually have them 24/7. Plus, if the claim of invisibility was factually untrue that would make the company vulnerable to false claims lawsuits. I do not want to start an edit war by correcting that, but I just wanted to point that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.56.182.198 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] randomized studies
I took out the statement about the rarity of controlled studies - as we now have two --Vannin (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
Articles about products are particularly vulnerable to being deleted because they are not notable and are simply advertising. The advertising issue has been raised several times on this talk page. We have to be careful not to be totally over the top with biased presentations about this product and it is really important to stay neutral.--Vannin (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Advertising copy.
Again it looks as if someone has been through and tried to put advertising copy into the article. If the system is good it will stand on its own two feet and not need the big PR job. I've taken some of it out. I repeat that if it sounds too much like advertising there is a good chance that the article could be nominated for deletion. I see that an entire section has had no sources to it since August 2006, and really looks like it was put in by employees of the company. I will give it another week and then take that section out. --Vannin (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
