Align talks a lot about transitioning from analog to digital workflows. That's their big focus. They have a vertically integrated system with the scanner, treatment planning software, and manufacturing all seamlessly integrated. They're pitching that this allows high-volume orthodontists to accelerate their throughput. Maybe they're making less profit per case compared to other aligner systems, but they're compensating with higher volume. I'm wondering to what extent does Align's system allow for more workflow efficiencies compared to other competing systems like ClearCorrect or Angel Aligner? Do you think there's a significant difference? If you're an orthodontist adopting Invisalign, are you seeing much more case volume compared to an orthodontist who adopts Angel Aligner? Is there really that much of a difference?

I can give you an example. There's an OSO called Bond, based out of Texas. They have some of the top orthodontists in the country as part of that OSO. They were all in with Spark and loved it—the plastic, the technology—but it wasn't scalable. Spark couldn't provide the necessary support on time. Aligner delivery and communication with the technician took much longer. For high-functioning, high-volume OSO orthodontists, that's unacceptable because delivery is crucial. That's where Align has the advantage. They have a vast number of backend people providing significant support. When it comes to scaling, Align surpasses everyone. They have facilities in Costa Rica and Juarez for printing, and a thousand technicians available to assist. They also offer Live Chat, where AI automates your ClinCheck, and if you need help, a technician is available. The volume of people supporting Align gives them a complete advantage over Angel Aligner and Spark, who lack the infrastructure to support high volume.