Align Technology Launches Integrated Consumer and Professional Brand Campaign Focused on Invisalign® Treatment for Kids and Teens
New "Invisalign for Kids" brand consumer campaign educates parents of younger children about the benefits of Invisalign® clear aligners
New Kids and Teens Invisalign "Growing Patients" professional campaign supports doctors with information including a full range of dedicated products, tools, and treatment options across the Invisalign portfolio that explains how Invisalign treatment specifically meets the needs of growing patients at the stages of their development
New campaigns are part of Align's year-long 20 million smilestone celebration, and feature Invisalign innovation helping doctors transform over 5.8 million kids, teens, and growing patient smiles
TEMPE, Ariz., June 17, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Align Technology, Inc. ("Align") (Nasdaq: ALGN) a leading global medical device company that designs, manufactures, and sells the Invisalign® System of clear aligners, iTero™ intraoral scanners, and exocad™ CAD/CAM software for digital orthodontics and restorative dentistry, today announced integrated global professional and consumer campaigns to highlight the unique needs of growing patients and treatment options for meeting those needs and creating new smiles with the Invisalign clear aligner system.
"We are proud to launch these complementary Invisalign® brand campaigns about the kid and teen-friendly orthodontic solutions from the #1 doctor-recommended clear aligner brand,1" said Kamal Bhandal, senior vice president, Global Brand, Consumer and Americas Marketing. "Our new "Invisalign for Kids" brand consumer campaign is designed to increase awareness with parents that Invisalign aligners are an effective solution for kids and educate parents about the benefits of Invisalign treatment for kids and teens, including Invisalign® Palatal Expander System, Invisalign First™, Invisalign® System with mandibular advancement, as well as Invisalign® Virtual Care to help parents monitor progress – all designed to deliver predictable results and a positive experience for growing children."
The aspects of Invisalign treatment, from Phase 1 to comprehensive Phase 2, to retention are designed for predictable results and a positive experience while addressing the unique needs of growing children. And with Invisalign aligners, children can enjoy their favorite foods, keep up their oral hygiene, maintain an active lifestyle, and smile and build their confidence.
At the same time, our companion Invisalign "Growing Patients" professional campaign provides doctors with information and awareness about the dedicated range of Invisalign treatment options designed specifically for children and teens from well-established products such as Invisalign First™ aligners to the latest additions in the growing patient product portfolio, including the Invisalign® Palatal Expander System and Invisalign® System with mandibular advancement featuring occlusal blocks ("MAOB").
Doctors can use the Invisalign System to treat nearly any orthodontic case, from children through teens to adults, at the different stages of their growth. Even with some baby teeth, it may be the perfect time for children ages 6 to 10 to start Phase 1 orthodontic treatment. According to the American Association of Orthodontists ("AAO"), children should get screened by an orthodontist by age 7.2
Phase 1 treatment takes advantage of a child's normal development to help bones in the face and mouth grow correctly and reduce the need for more extensive treatment later. Once most permanent teeth are in place, Phase 2 treatment focuses on ensuring teeth are in their proper place for a healthy bite and a pleasing appearance.3
"As kids and teens age and grow, orthodontic treatment needs to address both tooth movement and dental facial orthopedic or skeletal movement," said Dr. Mitra Derakhshan, executive vice president, chief clinical officer, Global Treatment Planning and Clinical Services. "As the leader in digital orthodontics, Align has developed an extensive end-to-end portfolio that helps doctors treat a range of case types including the most complex cases, and growing patients and kids as young as 6. I believe our new "Invisalign for Kids" brand and "Growing Patients" campaigns will help increase confidence in Invisalign treatment for the largest segment of the orthodontic market and drive further adoption among growing patients."
This latest announcement is part of Align's long-term investment in the growing patients' segment of the market which has included multiple innovation milestones over 20 million smiles.
Overview of Invisalign products for growing patients:
2008: Invisalign® Teen – Teen specific features to address patient compliance, natural eruption of permanent teeth, and root-movement control – issues that are common in treatment of younger patients.
2017: Invisalign® System with mandibular advancement – the first clear aligner solution designed for simultaneous Class II correction and alignment in growing tween and teen patients and Invisalign® System with mandibular advancement featuring enhanced precision wings.
2018: Invisalign First™ – the first clear aligner treatment with features designed specifically to address a broad range of indications in mixed-dentition patients, including shorter clinical crowns, management of erupting dentition, and predictable dental arch expansion.
2023: Invisalign® Palatal Expander System –Align's first direct 3D printed orthodontic device, provides a safe, comfortable, and clinically effective4 alternative to traditional palatal expanders that require manually turning a screw in the device in the mouth daily to achieve skeletal expansion.
2025: Invisalign® System with mandibular advancement featuring occlusal blocks – Align's first clear aligner product with integrated solid occlusal blocks that delivers predictable mandibular advancement. Invisalign occlusal blocks provide durability, improve engagement, and enable vertical opening to offer earlier advancement of the mandible in cases like Class II deep bite to improve treatment efficiency.
"Our commitment is to support our doctors in treating patients through every step of their journey – from first visit to a lasting smile. More than 28 years of anonymized data from more than 20 million Invisalign® patients treated globally have helped Align develop our integrated suite of innovative products and solutions that enable doctors to treat patients over their continuum of care," said Michael Smith, Align vice president, Product Management. "This new integrated campaign highlights the unique product offerings within our growing patient portfolio and how we are innovating in digital orthodontics to empower doctors to transform smiles and change lives."
1. Based on a global survey of 1,786 doctors (dentists and orthodontists who use clear aligners) by IQVIA in NA, EMEA, LATAM, and APAC. Data on File at Align Technology, as of June 30, 2022.
2. American Academy of Orthodontists. The Right Time: When Should Your Child See an Orthodontist? (https://aaoinfo.org/whats-trending/when-should-your-child-see-an-orthodontist/) Accessed 2/26/24.
3. American Academy of Orthodontists. Embarking on a Two Phase Orthodontic Adventure (https://aaoinfo.org/whats-trending/6-facts-about-two-phase-treatment/) Accessed 2/28/24.
4. Based on a survey in August 2023 in Canada of 10 Invisalign trained orthodontists who participated in the Invisalign Palatal Expander System Technical Design Assessment and have treated at least 1 patient age 6-11 years with IPE. Data on file at Align Technology, Inc. as of October 30, 2023.
About Align Technology, Inc.
Align Technology designs and manufactures the Invisalign® System, the most advanced clear aligner system in the world, iTero™ intraoral scanners and services, and exocad™ CAD/CAM software. These technology building blocks enable enhanced digital orthodontic and restorative workflows to improve patient outcomes and practice efficiencies for over 281.4 thousand doctor customers and are key to accessing Align's 600 million consumer market opportunity worldwide. Over the past 28 years, Align has helped doctors treat over 20.1 million patients with the Invisalign System and is driving the evolution in digital dentistry through the Align™ Digital Platform, our integrated suite of unique, proprietary technologies and services delivered as a seamless, end-to-end solution for patients and consumers, orthodontists and GP dentists, and lab/partners. Visit www.aligntech.com for more information.
For additional information about the Invisalign System or to find an Invisalign doctor in your area, please visit www.invisalign.com. For additional information about the iTero digital scanning system, please visit www.itero.com. For additional information about exocad dental CAD/CAM offerings and a list of exocad reseller partners, please visit www.exocad.com.
Invisalign, iTero, exocad, Align, Align Digital Platform and iTero Lumina are trademarks of Align Technology, Inc.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250617477921/en/
Contacts
Align Technology Madelyn Valente(909) 833-5839mvalente@aligntech.com
Zeno Group Sarah Karlson(828) 551-4201sarah.karlson@zenogroup.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and TSMC pitched $1 trillion AI complex — SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son wants to turn Arizona into the next Shenzhen
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Masayoshi Son, founder of SoftBank Group, is working on plans to develop a giant AI and manufacturing industrial hub in Arizona, potentially costing up to $1 trillion if it reaches full scale, reports Bloomberg. The concept of what is internally called Project Crystal Land involves creating a complex for building artificial intelligence systems and robotics. Son has talked to TSMC, Samsung, and the Trump administration about the project. Masayoshi Son's Project Crystal Land aims to replicate the scale and integration of China's Shenzhen by establishing a high-tech hub focused on manufacturing AI-powered industrial robots and advancing artificial intelligence technologies. The site would host factories operated by SoftBank-backed startups specializing in automation and robotics, Vision Fund portfolio companies (such as Agile Robots SE), and potentially involve major tech partners like TSMC and Samsung. If fully realized, the project could cost up to $1 trillion and is intended to position the U.S. as a leading center for AI and high-tech manufacturing. SoftBank is looking to include TSMC in the initiative, given its role in fabricating Nvidia's AI processors. However, a Bloomberg source familiar with TSMC's internal thinking indicated that the company's current plan to invest $165 billion in total in its U.S. projects has no relation to SoftBank's projects. Samsung Electronics has also been approached about participating, the report says. Talks have been held with government officials to explore tax incentives for companies investing in the manufacturing hub. This includes communication with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, according to Bloomberg. SoftBank is reportedly seeking support at both the federal and state levels, which could be crucial to the success of the project. The development is still in the early stages, and feasibility will depend on private sector interest and political support, sources familiar with SoftBank's plans told Bloomberg. To finance its Project Crystal Land, SoftBank is considering project-based financing structures typically used in large infrastructure developments like pipelines. This approach would enable fundraising on a per-project basis and reduce the amount of upfront capital required from SoftBank itself. A similar model is being explored for the Stargate AI data center initiative, which SoftBank is jointly pursuing with OpenAI, Oracle, and Abu Dhabi's MGX. Melissa Otto of Visible Alpha suggested in a Bloomberg interview that rather than spending heavily, Son might more efficiently support his AI project by fostering partnerships between manufacturers, AI engineers, and specialists in fields like medicine and robotics, and by backing smaller startups. However, she notes that investing in data centers could also reduce AI development costs and drive wider adoption, which would be good for the long term for AI in general and Crystal Land specifically. Nonetheless, it is still too early to judge the outcome. The rumor about the Crystal Land project has emerged as SoftBank is expanding its investments in AI on an already large scale. The company is preparing a $30 billion investment in OpenAI and a $6.5 billion acquisition of Ampere Computing, a cloud-native CPU company. While these initiatives are actively developing, the pace of fundraising for the Stargate infrastructure has been slower than initially expected. SoftBank's liquidity at the end of March stood at approximately ¥3.4 trillion ($23 billion). To increase available funds, the company recently sold about a quarter of its T-Mobile U.S. stake, raising $4.8 billion. It also holds ¥25.7 trillion ($176.46 billion) in net assets, the largest portion of which is in chip designer Arm Holdings. Such vast resources provide SoftBank with room to secure additional financing if necessary, Bloomberg notes Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors should consider this growth stock… it's SpaceX's competition
Rocket Lab (NASDAQ:RKLB) is a US-listed growth stock that gives investors rare access to the commercial space sector. As a vertically integrated launch and space systems provider, Rocket Lab is often compared to SpaceX in its ambition and capabilities. But there's one crucial difference: you can actually buy shares in Rocket Lab, while SpaceX remains private. Rocket Lab delivers launch services, builds small and medium-class rockets, and manufactures spacecraft components for a range of commercial, government, and defense customers. With rapid revenue growth, an impressive order book, and expansion into new markets, Rocket Lab offers public market investors a way to participate in the booming space economy. It targets many of the same opportunities as its more famous, privately held peer. Rocket Lab and SpaceX operate in the same commercial space sector but differ significantly in scale, maturity, and valuation. Rocket Lab's market cap is currently $12.85bn, with trailing 12 months (TTM) revenue of approximately $460m. Despite strong growth — revenue nearly doubled from $240m in 2023 — Rocket Lab remains a smaller, earlier-stage player focused on small to medium launch vehicles and spacecraft manufacturing. Its valuation multiples are extremely high, with a forward price-to-sales ratio of 22.3 times, reflecting investor optimism. SpaceX, by contrast, is a far more mature private company valued at about $350bn. It's projected to generate $15.5bn in revenue in 2025. This is driven by its dominant Falcon 9 launch services and rapidly growing Starlink satellite internet business. SpaceX's valuation implies roughly a 22.5 times multiple on forward revenue. This is broadly in line with Rocket Lab. Focusing on Rocket Lab, the company is projected to deliver rapid revenue growth over the next several years, with estimates rising from $573m in 2025 to $889 in 2026, $1.2bn in 2027, and $1.69bn in 2028. This represents annual growth rates consistently above 30%, and even a jump of nearly 77% in 2030. However, the number of analysts providing forecasts declines sharply after 2027, dropping from 11–14 analysts in the near term to just two or one by 2028 and 2030. The one analyst projecting as far as 2030 sees $4bn in revenue for the year. I had the chance to buy Rocket Lab shares at $15 just two months ago. I missed out as unfortunately my attention had been diverted elsewhere. However, I found another entry point. And personally, I see this as an investment to hold for a very long period. The space industry is still in its early innings, with enormous potential as satellite launches, lunar missions, and in-orbit services become increasingly mainstream. And like any investment, there are risks. Rocket Lab remains loss-making. It's expected to turn a profit in 2026, when it will trade at 620 times earnings. And while this moderates to 140 times in 2027, it's still expensive and introduces plenty of execution risk. However, I certainly believe UK investors should consider this one. It could be a real winner going forward. The post Investors should consider this growth stock… it's SpaceX's competition appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool James Fox has positions in Rocket Lab. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
New Jersey Anti-SLAPP Law Applies In Part In Federal Court In Paucek
The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are split on the application of Anti-SLAPP laws in the federal ... More courts. Chip Paucek had been the CEO of a company (U2, Inc.) which had failed under some negative circumstances. Paucek is now the CEO of a new company (Pro-Athlete Community, Inc. a/k/a "PAC") which provides educational and other support to professional athletes who have ceased playing. Paucek came to the attention of Dahn Shaulis, who is a blogger covering the education industry through his publication Higher Education Inquirer ("HEI"). After following Paucek's failure with U2, Shaulis then began to investigate and cover Paucek's new venture, PAC. Long story short, Shaulis made some unflattering comments about Paucek on social media. Paucek had his attorney send Shaulis a cease-and-desist letter which also called for Shaulis to retract the offending comments. Shaulis agreed to do so, but only on terms that were unacceptable to Paucek. The day after receiving Paucek's cease-and-desist letter, Shaulis then posted on social media that he had received the letter but that he stood by the statements therein based on a variety of information. Paucek then sued Shaulis in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Paucek alleged that Shaulis' social media posts were defamatory and that Shaulis had intentionally interfered with Paucek's prospective business relations. Shaulis responded by filing a motion to first determine if the New Jersey Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") applied in federal court and which of several states' Anti-SLAPP laws should be applied to this controversy. The idea here was that the court would decide these threshold issues before Shaulis filed his UPEPA motion to dismiss (which had not yet been filed as of the time of this opinion). Shaulis also answered Paucek's complaint with a counterclaim under the UPEPA. All of this led to the opinion in Paucek v. Shaulis, 2025 WL 1298457 (D.N.J., May 6, 2025), that you can and should read for yourself here, and which we will next review. The first question addressed by the court was whether the New Jersey UPEPA would be recognized in federal court. The issue here is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) already provide a means for the early dismissal of a case, which is by way of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. If a defendant attaches evidence to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then that motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. As I have often written, a special motion to dismiss or strike under the UPEPA is essentially an early summary judgment motion and akin to a "motion to dismiss on steroids". In fact, the UPEPA deliberately uses the summary judgment standard to test whether the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because that standard is well-understood by the courts and has already withstood constitutional challenges based on the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. So, the question becomes: if the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is already employed by the federal courts, then why substitute it with the UPEPA? The answer is twofold. First, in diversity of citizenship cases (as here), the federal courts will apply their own procedural rules but they are also required to apply the substantive rules of the state from where the action arises. This is known as the Erie doctrine, after a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court opinion of that name. But there is an important limitation, being that if the state substantive law "is in direct collision" with the federal procedure on some issue, then the federal procedure will govern that issue. Second, there are some differences between a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a UPEPA special motion, mostly being the UPEPA special motion triggers a stay of discovery and the UPEPA automatically awards attorney fees to a defendant who successfully asserts a UPEPA special motion. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does neither of these things. This is not the first time that a federal court has addressed whether the state law UPEPA should apply in the federal courts. In fact, throughout the nation, the state law UPEPA has been asserted in many federal court cases. The problem is that the federal courts have not all agree on the outcome, but rather there has been a split of opinion by the various federal circuits. The Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that Anti-SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court, while the 1st and 9th Circuits have held that they do. For its part, the Second Circuit has opinions going both ways, but with the latest opinions stating that Anti-SLAPP law do not apply in federal court. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court is eventually going to have to step in and resolve this split of decisions among the Circuits, but we're not there yet. The District of New Jersey, where this case was heard, sits in the 3rd Circuit which hasn't ruled yet on the issue. The court here declined to look at the issue as merely being one of whether an Anti-SLAPP law should apply in federal court or not. Rather, the court thought that the correct analysis was whether a particular Anti-SLAPP law (here, New Jersey's UPEPA) through its text and structure was in conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This would be the analysis to be followed by the court. To this end, it was obvious to the court that some provisions of the UPEPA do indeed conflict with the FRPC. One example is that of the UPEPA mandating that a defendant who successfully brings a UPEPA special motion will be awarded attorney's fees. By contrast, the FRPC instead requires that before such attorney fees can be awarded, a successful party would have to prevail on either summary judgment or at trial. This means the defendant must prove that the plaintiff has no case, which is different than the UPEPA which requires the plaintiff to establish that he can make at least a prima facie case to avoid dismissal. Other conflicts of the UPEPA with the FRPC include an immediate appeal of right to the defendant if the UPEPA special motion is unsuccessful, and also the automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a UPEPA special motion. So, there were conflicts between the UPEPA and the FRPC where their provisions collided. But that did not mean to the court that the entire UPEPA would be disallowed in federal court, but rather only that the conflicting provisions of the UPEPA would be surgically excised and in those places the federal rules would be substituted in their stead. This is known as "severability" and it is essentially the same process as where the illegal provisions of a contract are cut out but the surviving operating provisions will be enforced. This is the approach that has been followed by the Second and Ninth Circuits, which allows a court to enforce the state Anti-SLAPP procedures where they do not conflict with the federal rules, but replace those procedures with the corresponding federal rule where they do conflict. Now the court returned to the Erie doctrine which, it will be recalled, requires a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply state substantive law but federal procedural law. Thus, it would only be the procedural parts of a state's Anti-SLAPP laws, including the UPEPA, that would be replaced by the federal rules. The substantive parts of the state's Anti-SLAPP laws would survive and be utilized under the Erie doctrine. This brought the court to one of the questions before it: Was the UPEPA's mandatory award of fees to a defendant who successfully asserted a UPEPA special motion to be considered substantive or procedural in nature? Under the Erie doctrine, a fee-shifting provision is typically considered to be substantive in nature because it is tied to the outcome of the litigation (a procedural rule is not). But there are times when a fee-shifting provision would be procedural, such as when such fees are awarded because of a party's bad faith conduct ― but that is not tied to the outcome of the litigation. Because the UPEPA's mandatory fee award is tied to the outcome, since it can only be awarded if the defendant prevails on the UPEPA special motion, the court held that the UPEPA fee-shifting provision is substantive and not procedural. But the UPEPA in fact has two fee-shifting provisions. As mentioned, the first provision awards attorney fees to a defendant who wins on the UPEPA special motion. This is different than the second provision, by which a court has the discretion to award attorney fees to the plaintiff and against the defendant if the defendant filed the UPEPA special motion in bad faith or for purposes of delay. This latter provision is not tied to the outcome of the case, since the case continues if the defendant loses the UPEPA special motion, and thus is procedural in nature. The upshot to this is that if the defendant wins the UPEPA special motion, then the mandatory fee award in favor of the defendant is substantive and determined by state law. However, if the defendant loses the special motion then the issue of whether fees can be awarded against the defendant would be procedural in nature and determined if at all by the FRCP. The court also noted another factor in determining the UPEPA's mandatory fee award to be substantive: One of the purposes of that mandatory fee award is to deter the filing of abusive litigation. Disposing of a minor issue, the court also held that UPEPA relief is only obtainable through the filing of a UPEPA special motion and not by way of a counterclaim. The balance of the opinion deals with a conflict of law issue; namely, which state's Anti-SLAPP law would apply. The court ultimately concludes that the New Jersey UPEPA applies, and although the court's discussion of the issue is quite interesting, it is beyond the scope of this article. ANALYSIS Anti-SLAPP laws such as the UPEPA are indeed a mix of substantive and procedural law ― they are not purely one or the other. It therefore makes sense for the federal courts in applying the Erie doctrine to apply the substantive portions but reject the procedural ones. This may be the best that we get until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the split between circuits (and that could go either way) or Congress adopts a federal Anti-SLAPP law (which is regularly introduced, but never seems to go anywhere). But in the words of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want. You get what you need."
