> Static text version. Controls do not run in this Markdown file. [Open the matching HTML page]() for available page controls, navigation and browser printing. Understand your treatment scope # Two proposals, two treatment scopes Follow two independently assessed fictional adults through their stated reasons, selected teeth, goals, excluded objectives and continuing care responsibilities\. On this page 1. [Two people, with separate assessments and different agreed goals]() 2. [Maya: a defined upper\-front alignment objective]() 3. [Daniel: alignment and an identified contact objective]() 4. [The finished comparison: area, purpose and agreement]() 5. [Sources for this lesson]() General education and clearly labelled fictional examples\. Your clinicians explain your individual findings and directions\. ## Two people, with separate assessments and different agreed goals These are two independently assessed fictional adults, not a comparison of treatments offered to one person\. The findings, clinical explanations and administrative statements below are invented teaching documents\. They are not actual patient results, SMILE\-FX® quotations or evidence that a reader qualifies for either scope\. Both supplied proposals use braces\. Keeping the appliance category the same makes the difference in objectives easier to see\. These cases do not make braces the one\-arch appliance or settle when aligners would be selected; appliance choice belongs to each individual's assessed plan\. ## Maya: a defined upper\-front alignment objective **Assessment context:** Maya wants the arrangement of her upper front teeth explained\. Her fictional orthodontist records irregular arrangement in those teeth and states that an individual examination, assessment of how her teeth meet and discussion of viable alternatives support the limited objective agreed with her\. **Treated area:** the proposal names the six upper front teeth within an upper\-arch braces course\. **Intended objective:** improve the arrangement of those identified upper front teeth\. **Stated reason:** the clinician explicitly says that the agreed objective is upper\-front alignment and that a change to the back\-tooth contact relationship is not needed for that individually assessed objective\. That professional explanation supplies the reason for this scope; the visible irregularity alone does not\. **Outside this proposal:** a separate objective to change how the back teeth meet is expressly not being undertaken\. If Maya wants that different objective discussed, it needs its own clinical explanation and proposal rather than being assumed part of this one\. **Review and retention:** Maya receives individual appliance\-care directions, attends the reviews her clinician plans and raises concerns through her treating team\. The clinician reviews progress against the named upper\-front goal and explains any proposed change in scope\. After active care, Maya follows the retention directions personally supplied to her; this example supplies no wear schedule or permanence promise\. **Supplied service statement:** the written quotation applies to the described upper\-arch braces course, its planned clinical reviews and its specified retention arrangements\. A new back\-tooth contact objective is excluded\. No fee amount is provided in the teaching document\. ### Completed meaning for Maya Maya can explain her plan positively: “This proposal is for the identified upper front teeth and their alignment\. My clinician has supplied an individual assessment and a reason for keeping that goal distinct from a back\-tooth contact change\. I know what is being reviewed and which later retention directions I am responsible for following\. The service statement names what its quotation covers\.” That is a complete reading of the supplied scope, not a claim that another person with a similar\-looking concern should receive it\. ## Daniel: alignment and an identified contact objective **Assessment context:** Daniel has a separate fictional examination\. His orthodontist records arrangement issues in both arches and identifies the contact between his upper and lower front teeth as another issue included in their agreed goals\. **Treated area:** the proposal names teeth in both the upper and lower arches, using braces\. **Intended objective:** address the specified arrangements in both arches and the front\-tooth contact relationship described in his clinical explanation\. **Stated reason:** his clinician explicitly links the positions of the identified upper and lower teeth with the agreed contact objective, and explains that both sets are included for that reason in Daniel's plan\. This is a supplied reason for this fictional individual, not a rule that every contact goal or comprehensive proposal always requires both arches\. **Outside this proposal:** changing tooth color is not one of its orthodontic objectives\. A color service is a separate subject, not a result promised by the alignment or contact wording\. **Review and retention:** Daniel follows his individually supplied appliance\-care directions, attends his planned clinical reviews and brings questions to his treating team\. Those reviews consider both the named arrangements and the identified contact objective\. Any changed objective needs an explanation\. Later he follows his own supplied retention arrangements; the document gives no universal timetable or guaranteed lasting position\. **Supplied service statement:** this quotation covers the named both\-arch braces course, its alignment/contact reviews and its stated retention arrangements\. A separate color service is excluded\. The example gives no fee amount\. ### Completed meaning for Daniel Daniel can say: “My proposal names both arches because my clinician has connected their assessed positions with the alignment and contact goals we have discussed\. Those are the objectives my reviews will address\. Tooth color is outside this proposal\. My written service statement identifies its included course and continuing arrangements\.” The useful difference from Maya's plan is the supplied endpoint and reason, not a larger arch count winning a contest\. ## The finished comparison: area, purpose and agreement Maya's stated endpoint is the arrangement of six upper front teeth, with a separate back\-tooth contact objective left outside scope\. Daniel's includes identified arrangements in both arches and their described front\-tooth contact\. Each explanation supplies its own clinical reason and review responsibilities\. Neither case establishes the other's suitability, relative value, duration, price or likely result\. The two service statements answer a related administrative question: which course, reviews and retention arrangements their quotations apply to\. Because no fee amounts are supplied, no cheaper conclusion follows\. Because these are invented documents, their inclusions are not local practice\-package claims\. After those completed meanings, two useful follow\-up questions remain: “Does this explanation match the goal I understood?” and “Is a different objective being proposed, with different services?” You can discuss, decline or reconsider a proposal without treating either fictional adult as the right choice for you\. ## Sources for this lesson Sources: [British Orthodontic Society: Limited treatment orthodontics]() · [AAO: Questions from adults considering treatment \(2024\)]() ## Keep exploring - [Which teeth and which goals?]() - [Two complete proposal interpretations]() - [The complete SMILE\-FX® care model]() Your individual next step ## Discuss your own orthodontic goal [Request a free in\-person consultation]() The team confirms the appointment, assessment scope, fees and proposed services\. A request is not an appointment or case acceptance\. [Call \(954\) 824\-9707]() · [Visit details]()