NewSmile Appears in 64.4% of AI Answers. Here's Our Five-Step Plan to Improve Its AI Visibility.

Answer Capsule

In November 2026, NewSmile appeared in 186 of 289 AI answers included in the Invisible Braces benchmark (64.36%). It received 103 recommendations (35.64%), with 57 Top 3 placements and 17 first-place recommendations. A mention means the company appeared in an answer; a recommendation means the answer affirmatively endorsed it.

Our plan compares the company with its competitors, checks conflicting AI claims against reliable sources, and identifies website pages, third-party sources and buyer questions to address. The historical results show how the figures changed across available months. Different monthly samples limit those comparisons, and conflicting AI claims require verification before corrections are proposed.

Current AI visibility

Questions This Section Answers

• How do NewSmile mentions, recommendations and placements compare with its Invisible Braces peers?

NewSmile recorded 186 mentions (64.36%) and 103 recommendations (35.64%) across 289 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 57; first-place recommendations numbered 17. Framing among its mentions was 103 positive, 83 neutral and 0 negative.

NewSmile sits third in the benchmark, named in well over half of the answers and recommended in more than a third. That is genuine reach, but the distance between being mentioned and being affirmatively endorsed is where the commercial opportunity sits. A buyer who sees the name without a positive recommendation may still choose a rival.

The placement picture sharpens this. NewSmile appears in the top three far less often than the two leaders, and first-place finishes are rarer still. Framing is not the problem, since no negative wording was recorded. We would treat these figures as a starting scorecard rather than a verdict, and check the underlying claims about NewSmile against current primary sources before proposing page briefs or publisher review.

What changed since last month

Questions This Section Answers

• How did NewSmile counts and coverage differ across the available monthly snapshots?

From October 2026 to November 2026, NewSmile's mention count fell from 190 to 186, while its recommendation count rose from 94 to 103. The recommendation rate was 25.97% and 35.64% respectively.

The monthly record moves in two directions at once. Mentions slipped slightly from October to November while recommendations rose, so the recommendation rate climbed. That is a more favourable pattern than the raw mention count suggests, because endorsement is the measure that matters for buyer choice.

Placement also improved, with top-three and first-place finishes both higher than the prior month. We read this as a stronger showing within a smaller set of included answers, not as proof that anything the company did caused the shift.

The samples differ between months, so the comparison describes what was recorded rather than why. We would keep the scorecard monthly and resist drawing conclusions from any single movement.

Step 1. Measure

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency measure and verify first for NewSmile?

AI answers contained 3 conflicting claims about NewSmile: 0 critical, 0 high, 3 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Before changing anything, the client needs two things side by side: a clear view of where NewSmile stands against rivals, and a short list of the claims worth checking. The benchmark already supplies the first. The second comes from the conflicting statements captured in AI answers, which cluster around pricing.

We would build a visibility scorecard that tracks mention, recommendation and placement separately, so progress in one is not mistaken for progress in another. Alongside it, a scoped fact-review list would give each disputed claim an owner and an evidence requirement.

Severity ratings help order that list. They indicate where checking should start; they do not establish that the company or any publisher got something wrong.

Step 2. Make the website consistent

Questions This Section Answers

• Which recorded claim differences about NewSmile should be verified before proposed page edits?

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

All the recorded conflicts concern price, which is exactly the kind of detail a cost-conscious buyer will act on. The answers disagree on the range and on the starting figure. Neither column is a verified company fact, so the first step is to confirm the entity, the date and the source behind each figure.

Different dates can explain an apparent conflict, and a promotional price may sit alongside a standard one. We would resolve those questions before drafting anything. Only then would conditional page briefs be prepared, using approved facts and stating prices with their conditions.

If verification shows the site already handles this clearly, the brief becomes a no-change decision rather than an edit.

Step 3. Align the external narrative

Questions This Section Answers

• Which cited third-party pages are relevant to fact review for NewSmile?

These pages were selected because they relate to the company in the captured answers. Their current contents still need checking before any correction request. A page linked to a conflicting claim is not necessarily its cause, and the same answer may contribute to more than one row.

The citation review points to a small set of pages worth reading closely, led by a Forbes health roundup and two NewMouth guides. These were selected because they relate to NewSmile in the captured answers, not because they are known to be wrong. Their current contents still need checking.

We would review each page against verified company facts and note where wording could mislead a buyer. Where a genuine gap exists, we would prepare an evidence-backed request to the publisher, framed as a clarification rather than an accusation.

A citation does not show that a page shaped an answer, and a linked conflict does not prove the page caused it. Requests should be justified on their own merits.

Step 4. Optimize priority company pages

Questions This Section Answers

• Which observed NewSmile website pages should receive review briefs?

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

The company's website was cited 0 times across 0 distinct page addresses; the table shows 0 pages selected for review. Zeros in the answer columns mean no matching answers were recorded. A cited page is not automatically a page that accompanied a recommendation.

No company pages were captured in this part of the analysis, so there is no owned-page evidence to interpret. That absence is a gap in the record, not a finding that the site lacks relevant content. We would not draw conclusions about page quality from it.

The practical response is to establish the owned-page baseline directly. We would inventory the pages that answer the pricing and product questions buyers actually ask, then check each against approved facts.

Page briefs would follow only where a real gap or inconsistency is confirmed, and each would specify the audience question, the approved facts and the reviewer who signs off.

Step 5. Publish around buyer questions

Questions This Section Answers

• Which observed buyer questions support content briefs for NewSmile?

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

The recorded questions are overwhelmingly about cost and about choosing between options: the cheapest aligner, the best at-home kit, the best and cheapest combined. NewSmile already appears in answers to several of these, which suggests the topics are relevant to its positioning.

These observations are not search volume and do not prove that the website is missing anything. We would check existing coverage first, then draft briefs only for questions where the site is thin or unclear.

Each brief would answer one buyer question directly, using approved facts and plain comparisons, so a reader can act on it without hunting across pages.

Our 90-day action plan

Questions This Section Answers

• How should the agency sequence the proposed NewSmile work and judge completion?

The first month establishes the baseline: a scorecard, a scoped fact-review register and a shortlist of pages and sources to examine. Each record gets an owner, an evidence requirement and a review status, so nothing sits unresolved.

The second month turns verified findings into approved page briefs and justified publisher requests. Confirmed edits, no-change decisions, requests and responses are logged separately, which keeps the record honest about what was actually done.

The third month adds buyer-question content briefs and a fresh scorecard. Completed work is reported apart from measured answer outcomes, and the comparability limits stay visible.

Methodology

Questions This Section Answers

• How are NewSmile answer metrics and citation populations defined?

This report covers 2026-11. The exact dates when the original AI answers were collected have not been verified. The visibility rates use 289 answers that met the benchmark's inclusion rules. A company is recommended only when the answer both endorses it and uses positive wording. Top 3 and first-place counts are part of those recommendations, not extra recommendations.

An answer can mention or recommend several companies, so company counts cannot be added to find the number of distinct answers. The net sentiment score is positive minus negative mentions, divided by all company mentions; it describes answer wording, not customer satisfaction.

The wider citation analysis covers 800 captured answers and 5881 appearances of cited URLs. Citation appearances across all captured answers differ from the number of benchmark answers citing a page and the number that also recommend a company. The current contents of cited pages and disputed company claims still need independent verification.

Monthly sample coverage:

The answer samples differ between months. These comparisons show how the recorded results changed; they do not establish why they changed.

The report covers a single month, and the exact dates when the original answers were collected have not been verified. Rates rest on the answers that met the benchmark's inclusion rules. A recommendation requires both an endorsement and positive wording, and placement counts sit inside recommendations rather than adding to them.

One answer can mention several companies, so company counts cannot be summed into a total number of answers. Sentiment describes answer wording, not customer satisfaction. The citation review covers a wider set of captured answers than the benchmark sample, and cited pages and disputed claims still need independent verification.

Monthly samples differ, so comparisons show what changed, not why.

Our first three priorities

The first priority is verification. The pricing conflicts are the claims most likely to affect a cost-focused buyer, and none can be resolved from the AI answers alone. We would confirm the entity, date and source behind each figure before anyone edits a page or contacts a publisher.

The second is the owned-page baseline. With no company pages captured here, we would inventory the pages that address price and product choice, check them against approved facts, and brief only where a genuine gap appears.

The third is buyer-question content. The recorded questions centre on cost and on choosing between options, and NewSmile already appears in several of them. Briefs should answer those questions directly and be checked against existing coverage first, so new work fills a real gap rather than duplicating a page.