How AI Search Is Recommending Invisible Braces: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

ALIGNERCO remains the coverage leader in October 2026, but the category's top tier tightened in a different way than it did last month. ALIGNERCO's valid recommendation coverage rose 4.9 points from 36.0% in September to 40.9% in October, while Invisalign (Align Technology) rose 3.3 points to 35.9%, leaving the leadership gap at 5.0 points. Neither move exceeded the brand's normal month-to-month variation, and the category summary records no significant movement this month.

The strongest upward mover against the baseline was ClearCorrect, which rose 12.0 points from 14.2% in July to 26.2% in October, a significant move and the third consecutive monthly gain in its series. ClearCorrect's raw mention presence rose 16.3 points to 50.3% and its top-three rate rose 18.0 points to 24.0%, both significant.

The sharpest decline against the baseline was Smileie, down 9.9 points from 19.8% in July to 9.9% in October, a significant drop and its second consecutive monthly decline. NewSmile fell 8.2 points from 34.2% in July to 26.0% in October, also significant.

Against September 2026, the category was quiet. September-to-October moves for every brand sat inside normal variation, and the month-to-month shifts were mixed in direction rather than clustered. Across the full series from July 2026 to October 2026, the benchmark records two significant risers (ClearCorrect and Spark Aligners) and five significant decliners (Aligner32, Candid, Impress, NewSmile and Smileie).

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. In October 2026 those 800 observations covered 529 unique questions; all 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 703 were relevant and 97 were irrelevant; 362 qualified observations survived both qualification stages. The July 2026 baseline began from the same 800 prompt-surface observations over 467 unique questions, with 737 relevant and 63 irrelevant prompts, leaving 465 qualified observations. Percentage figures in this report are calculated against each month's qualified observation count.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands had conflicting pricing answers across AI platforms, and how large were the discrepancies?
• Where did AI platforms disagree on the same brand's price, and which sources were cited for each side?

The conflict scan detected 12 critical or high-severity factual inconsistencies across five AI platforms: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, AI Mode, and AI Overviews.

ALIGNERCO

Nine high-severity pricing inconsistencies were detected for ALIGNERCO, spanning all five platforms involved in the scan.

When asked "Is byte or ALIGNERCO better?", ChatGPT stated a nighttime treatment price of $925 while AI Overviews stated $1,345 for the same plan, citing ALIGNERCO's own pricing page and Trustpilot on one side and Dentsply Sirona's investor newsroom, ALIGNERCO's Byte update page and a smiles.club alternatives article on the other. Responses therefore differed on the price of the identical nighttime plan.

Also in response to "Is byte or ALIGNERCO better?", ChatGPT stated an all-day treatment price of about $725 while AI Overviews stated around $1,145 for the same plan. Here AI Overviews drew on Dentsply Sirona's repositioning announcement and ALIGNERCO's Byte suspension post, while ChatGPT cited ALIGNERCO's pricing page, which the scan flagged for the excerpt showing an all-day plan advertised at $725 against a $1,095 list price.

When asked "How much does it cost for invisible teeth aligners?", Copilot gave an ALIGNERCO price range of $725 to $925 while AI Mode gave a starting price of around $1,095. AI platforms provided conflicting information about the same brand's entry price, with AI Mode sourcing Colgate, a best-invisible-braces roundup and Aligner32's cost guide. The scan flagged a NewMouth cost page cited on the Copilot side, which lists "ALIGNERCO $725 (list $1,095)" and "NightOnly $925 (list $1,295)".

When asked "How much do aligners cost on average?", Gemini placed at-home treatment including ALIGNERCO at $1,000 to $2,500 while Copilot gave an ALIGNERCO range of $725 to $925. The two ranges do not overlap. The scan flagged the NewMouth cost page on the Copilot side and a NewSmile pricing blog on the Gemini side, which lists at-home direct-to-consumer pricing at $1,500 to $2,500.

When asked "What is the best at home teeth aligner?", AI Mode stated $1,095 for all-day aligners while Copilot stated $725 to $925. The scan flagged two sources here: a NewSmile homepage excerpt showing "Fast Track Aligners $1,095 $1,795" and an ALIGNERCO homepage excerpt showing "All-Day Plan … $725 $1,095", the latter marked as supporting both sides.

When asked "What is the cheapest invisible braces option?", AI Overviews stated prices start around $795 for all-day wear while Copilot stated a starting range of around $995 to $1,100. AI platforms referenced ALIGNERCO's own affordable-alternative page, Everyday Health and a Canadian orthodontic cost guide on one side, and NerdBible, Knowledge Daily and Dentist Decoded on the other. The scan flagged the NerdBible page on the Copilot side for listing ALIGNERCO at $995.00.

Also on "What is the cheapest invisible braces option?", ChatGPT stated roughly $700 to $900+ depending on plan and sales while Copilot stated a starting range of around $995 to $1,100. ChatGPT cited NewMouth's cheapest-aligners roundup and Forbes Health; Copilot cited NerdBible, Knowledge Daily and Dentist Decoded. The scan flagged both the NerdBible page and a NewMouth excerpt stating "ALIGNERCO advertises $725 with those items included too."

On a third pass at "What is the cheapest invisible braces option?", AI Mode stated all-day plans generally priced around $725 to $995 while Copilot stated a starting range of around $995 to $1,100. The scan flagged a further source on the Copilot side, a dental practice blog stating affordable clear aligners start at $995.

Finally, when asked "Is byte or ALIGNERCO better?", ChatGPT stated about $725 for all-day treatment while AI Mode stated a starting price of around $1,095. ChatGPT cited ALIGNERCO's pricing page and Trustpilot; AI Mode cited Dentsply Sirona's Byte product update, a Byte brand page and ALIGNERCO's own Byte comparison post. The scan flagged ALIGNERCO's pricing page as supporting both claims, showing an all-day plan advertised at $725 against a $1,095 list price.

Smileie

Three high-severity pricing inconsistencies were detected for Smileie, spanning four platforms: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini and AI Overviews.

When asked "What is the cheapest clear aligner?", ChatGPT stated Smileie starts at roughly $649 to $699+ while Gemini stated a range of around $1,099 to $1,299. The two ranges do not overlap. The scan flagged three sources: a NewMouth cost page listing "Smileie $699 (list $849)" on the ChatGPT side, a Turkey Luxury Clinics article listing "Smileie $1,099 to $1,299" on the Gemini side, and a Dental Verdicts page on the ChatGPT side stating Smileie has the lowest advertised starting price at $549 for day-time aligners.

Also on "What is the cheapest clear aligner?", AI Overviews stated Smileie single-arch starts at $549 with full kits around $699 while Gemini stated the $1,099 to $1,299 range. AI Overviews cited Smileie's own single-arch product page, The Super Dentists and CNET; Gemini cited the Turkey Luxury Clinics and Dalton Family Dentistry articles. The scan flagged Smileie's single-arch page and a Smile Perfect product page on the AI Overviews side, both showing "Daytime Single Arch … $549.00 $699.00".

When asked "Which is the best and cheapest clear aligners?", Gemini stated a Smileie price range of $1,000 to $1,500 while Copilot stated $749 to $849. The scan flagged a NerdBible excerpt on the Copilot side showing "Smileie … $849.00 $749.00" and a NewMouth best-clear-aligner page on the Gemini side listing a $1,395 price.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How many prompt-surface observations qualified for analysis in October 2026 compared with the July baseline?
• What changed in the qualified observation set between July and October 2026?

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

August 2026 recorded 314 qualified observations and September 2026 recorded 380. Both sit between the baseline and current month and are shown here for context only.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The leader is unchanged across the series, and the recommendation-shaped share of qualified answers rose as the qualified set narrowed. September 2026, between the two columns above, produced a 34.2% valid recommendation shortlist share, the low point of the series.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Who leads invisible braces recommendations in October 2026, and how wide is the gap to second place?
• Which brands moved significantly between July and October 2026?

A Restored Top Two, With a Widening Field Behind Them

ALIGNERCO and Invisalign (Align Technology) hold first and second at 40.9% and 35.9%, a 5.0-point gap. ClearCorrect's rise has carried it to third at 26.2%, ahead of NewSmile at 26.0% by 0.2 points, and Spark Aligners now sits fifth at 20.7%.

Seven brands moved beyond normal month-to-month variation between July and October 2026. ClearCorrect and Spark Aligners rose significantly, while Aligner32, Candid, Impress, NewSmile and Smileie declined significantly. The category-level change came from the combination of those individual moves rather than from a single brand, and none of them occurred between September and October.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Why did ALIGNERCO's lead narrow despite recovering 4.9 points in October?
• What drove ClearCorrect's three consecutive monthly gains?
• Which brands declined significantly this month, and what does the movement look like across the series?

ALIGNERCO: The Lead Rebounds, the Diagnostic Does Not Change

ALIGNERCO's valid recommendation coverage rose 4.9 points from 36.0% in September to 40.9% in October, a move inside the brand's normal variation. Against the July baseline the brand remains down 5.8 points from 46.7%, also inside normal variation and classified as stable. The sharp September-to-October move is the recovery in the count of valid recommendations, which rose from 137 in September to 148 in October.

Placement told a mixed story. The brand's rank-one rate stands at 13.8% in October against 15.0% in July, a 1.2-point decline inside normal variation, and its top-three rate stands at 24.6% against 26.9% in July.

The distinction to notice: ALIGNERCO holds the highest valid recommendation coverage in the category, and its coverage recovered in October. But its rank-one rate remains below Invisalign's despite the coverage lead, and the gap to second place is now 5.0 points, narrower than the 13.8 points recorded in July.

Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompts returned ALIGNERCO to more valid recommendations in October, and which surfaces still place the brand outside the top slot when Invisalign is named first.

ClearCorrect: Three Consecutive Gains and a Widening Separation

ClearCorrect rose 12.0 points from 14.2% in July to 26.2% in October, the largest significant rise in the category. The series has risen in each of the four months recorded, from 14.2% to 18.8% to 21.6% to 26.2%. Against the immediate prior month, coverage rose 4.6 points from September, inside normal variation.

The rise is supported by the broadest movement in the category. Raw mention presence rose 16.3 points from 34.0% in July to 50.3% in October, a significant gain, and the top-three rate rose 18.0 points to 24.0%, also significant. Rank-one recommendations rose from 1 in July to 6 in October, a 1.5-point gain in rate that is also significant.

The distinction to notice: ClearCorrect's gain is not only about appearing more often. It now converts more than half of its presence into a recommendation of some kind, with 95 valid recommendations in October against 66 in July, and its top-three rate now sits within 0.6 points of ALIGNERCO's.

Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompts and surfaces drove the presence gain, and whether the new top-three placements are concentrated in specific query types or spread across the surface universe.

Smileie: The Sharpest Decline and a Two-Month Streak

Smileie fell 9.9 points from 19.8% in July to 9.9% in October, the largest significant decline in the category. The move is the second consecutive monthly decline, following the drop from 22.3% in August to 12.6% in September. Against the immediate prior month, coverage fell 2.7 points from September, inside normal variation.

The decline is visible in both volume and placement. Valid recommendations fell from 92 in July to 36 in October, and raw mention presence fell 5.4 points to 26.0%, a move inside the significance threshold. The top-three rate fell 3.8 points to 8.0%, and rank-one recommendations fell from 5 in July to 3 in October.

The distinction to notice: Smileie has now lost coverage in two consecutive months and sits seventh in a ten-brand field. Its presence remains higher than SureSmile (Dentsply Sirona) and Aligner32, but that presence is converting into fewer recommendations than either of the two brands immediately above it.

Highest-priority diagnostic: which surfaces have reduced Smileie's presence since August, and whether the two-month decline is concentrated in specific prompt types.

NewSmile: A Third-Largest Decline That Was Mostly a September Event

NewSmile fell 8.2 points from 34.2% in July to 26.0% in October, a significant decline. The month-level series shows the movement was concentrated: the brand fell from 37.6% in August to 22.9% in September, then recovered 3.1 points to 26.0% in October, a recovery inside normal variation.

The brand retains the third-highest presence in the category, with raw mention presence at 52.5% in October against 56.1% in July, a 3.6-point decline inside normal variation. Valid recommendations fell from 159 in July to 94 in October. The top-three rate fell 4.8 points to 13.5%, and the rank-one rate held at 3.6%, up 0.2 points from July.

The distinction to notice: NewSmile's presence and rank-one rate have held, but its coverage has fallen more than 8 points across the series, and ClearCorrect's rise has moved NewSmile out of the top three by 0.2 points.

Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompts stopped producing top-three placements between August and September, and whether the October recovery is the start of a recovery or a pause in decline.

Spark Aligners: A Second Consecutive Rise, Still Without a Rank-One

Spark Aligners rose 6.7 points from 14.0% in July to 20.7% in October, a significant gain and the second consecutive monthly rise, following the move from 14.0% in August to 16.1% in September. Against the immediate prior month, coverage rose 4.6 points from September, inside normal variation.

The gain is supported by presence and placement. Raw mention presence rose 10.8 points from 23.7% in July to 34.5% in October, a significant gain, and the top-three rate rose 12.3 points to 17.7%, also significant. Valid recommendations rose from 65 in July to 75 in October. Rank-one recommendations fell to zero in October, down from 1 in July.

The distinction to notice: Spark Aligners has gained presence and top-three placements for two consecutive months, and its top-three rate now sits above NewSmile's and Candid's. It has not converted any of that gain into a rank-one placement.

Highest-priority diagnostic: where the new presence is coming from, and why a top-three rate above 17% is still producing zero first-place recommendations.

Candid: A Significant Decline With a Countervailing Placement Gain

Candid fell 5.4 points from 18.9% in July to 13.5% in October, a significant decline. Against the immediate prior month, coverage rose 0.6 points from September, inside normal variation, and the brand is one of the five significant decliners across the series.

The placement picture runs opposite to coverage. The top-three rate rose 3.8 points from 3.9% in July to 7.7% in October, a significant gain, and rank-one recommendations rose from zero in July to 3 in October, a 0.8-point rate that sits just inside the significance threshold. Raw mention presence fell 3.8 points to 25.4%, and valid recommendations fell from 88 in July to 49 in October.

The distinction to notice: Candid is appearing less often and producing fewer recommendations, but the recommendations it does produce place it in the top three significantly more often than in July. With 28 top-three placements out of 49 valid recommendations, the brand's problem is reach rather than placement quality.

Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompts produced the top-three gains, and which prompts stopped producing recommendations despite continued mentions.

Aligner32, SureSmile (Dentsply Sirona) and Impress: Bottom-Tier Pressure at Different Scales

Aligner32 fell 4.1 points from 7.7% in July to 3.6% in October, a significant decline. Against the immediate prior month, coverage rose 1.0 point from 2.6% in September, inside normal variation, ending the two-month decline recorded last month. Valid recommendations fell from 36 to 13, and raw mention presence fell 2.5 points to 10.8%. The brand's top-three rate fell 1.7 points to 2.2%, and rank-one recommendations held at 2, a 0.5% rate.

SureSmile (Dentsply Sirona) fell 3.0 points from 11.8% in July to 8.8% in October, a move inside normal variation and classified as stable. Against the immediate prior month, coverage rose 2.5 points from 6.3% in September, the second consecutive monthly rise. Valid recommendations fell from 55 in July to 32 in October. Presence stands at 19.3%, down 0.7 points, and the rank-one rate held at 0.3%.

Impress fell 0.9 points from 0.9% in July to zero October coverage, a significant decline at the smallest scale in the category. The brand recorded 4 mentions in October, with zero valid recommendations and zero top-three or rank-one placements. It is the only tracked brand with no valid recommendations in the current month.

The distinction to notice: at these observation counts, small movements carry outsized percentage weight. Aligner32's 13 valid recommendations, SureSmile's 32 and Impress's zero mean their rates are sensitive to a handful of answers, and Impress's zero is a single-month result at four mentions.

Highest-priority diagnostic: for Aligner32, whether the October uptick marks the end of the two-month decline; for SureSmile, whether the second consecutive rise is building; for Impress, whether any surface mentions the brand at all.

Invisalign (Align Technology): A Filing That Shows the Top of the Category Is Not Equal

Invisalign (Align Technology) rose 3.0 points from 32.9% in July to 35.9% in October, a move inside normal variation and classified as stable. Valid recommendations fell from 153 in July to 130 in October. Presence held at 97.2%, up 0.2 points.

Placement is where the brand separates. Its top-three rate rose 14.9 points from 16.6% in July to 31.5% in October, a significant gain, and its rank-one rate rose 9.8 points to 25.7%, also significant. Both gains exceed the threshold for normal variation while the coverage move does not.

The distinction to notice: Invisalign holds the highest top-three and rank-one rates in the category by a wide margin, at 31.5% and 25.7% against ALIGNERCO's 24.6% and 13.8%. Its coverage sits second, 5.0 points behind ALIGNERCO, but when a buyer receives a ranked answer Invisalign is placed first more often than any other tracked brand, with 93 rank-one recommendations to ALIGNERCO's 50.

Highest-priority diagnostic: which surfaces and prompt types produce the rank-one placements, and whether the 93 rank-one recommendations cluster in a single AI family.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters produced qualified observations in the benchmark?
• Why can't the benchmark answer which brand wins on price perception or head-to-head comparisons?

Across all four months in the series, the qualified observations fell entirely into the brand recommendation cluster. No qualified observations were classified into the pricing and value cluster or the multi-brand comparison cluster. The raw response-type distribution for October 2026 shows 137 pricing analysis responses, 107 recommendation shortlists and 47 comparison analyses, but none of these categories produced qualified observations outside brand recommendation.

The contrast with the inconsistency scan is direct and worth noting. The scan found 12 high-severity pricing inconsistencies across the same period, including nine for ALIGNERCO and three for Smileie, yet the public benchmark's qualified set contains no pricing-and-value observations. The benchmark can therefore establish which brand AI systems recommend, but it cannot yet answer which brand wins on price perception or in direct head-to-head comparisons within this vertical, even where AI systems are demonstrably producing conflicting price answers.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brand has the highest coverage in invisible braces, and where does it still trail?
• What is the highest-priority diagnostic for each brand in the October 2026 benchmark?

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted across these ten brands; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why the observed patterns are occurring.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations covering the query, the AI surface, the recommendation outcome, the rank within the answer, the sentiment expressed, and the citations where exposed. Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery research program.

• AI Visibility Industry Market Methodology
• AI Visibility Industry Market Metrics
• AI Visibility Industry Market Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• The qualified observation count varied across the series: 465 in July 2026, 314 in August 2026, 380 in September 2026 and 362 in October 2026. Percentage movements reflect these differing denominators between months.
• Moves flagged as significant exceeded normal month-to-month variation for that brand. Moves not flagged remain within expected variation and are directional signals, not established trends. No brand moved significantly between September and October 2026.
• ALIGNERCO's September result and recovery sit between the baseline and current columns above but do not change the significance classification of the baseline-to-current move.
• Placement signals and coverage signals diverge for several brands. Invisalign (Align Technology) holds the highest rank-one and top-three rates while sitting second on coverage. Candid's top-three rate rose significantly while its coverage fell significantly.
• Small observation counts mean percentage movements are sensitive to a small number of recommendations. Impress recorded zero valid recommendations from 4 mentions; Aligner32 recorded 13 valid recommendations; SureSmile (Dentsply Sirona) recorded 32.
• Smileie's decline spans two consecutive months, while most other significant moves in the series were single-month shifts from baseline.
• Directional analysis identifies where movement occurred; it does not establish what caused the movement.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

Beneath the aggregate coverage percentages sit the questions that define commercial position: which high-intent prompts a brand wins, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. For ALIGNERCO, the benchmark shows a recovered lead and a rank-one rate still behind Invisalign's; it does not show which prompts returned the brand to more valid recommendations. For ClearCorrect, it shows three consecutive monthly gains; it does not show which surfaces or evidence sources are producing them. And for ALIGNERCO and Smileie together, the scan shows twelve conflicting pricing answers across five platforms while the qualified set contains no pricing observations at all.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. That is the next step beyond the benchmark.

Request an AI visibility audit