Sir, I think it worthwhile to bring to your readers' attention the result of an investigation by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) that was sparked, in part, by a previous discussion in these letters pages on the potential merits of Fastbraces.1,2

The ASA are a body funded by a levy on UK advertisers who take action against misleading, harmful or offensive advertisements. The ASA cannot investigate complaints on international websites. The main promotional Fastbraces website is not based in the UK.

I highlighted concerns I had about claims on a UK website relating to Fastbraces' efficacy and comparisons to other brace treatment (faster treatment, less painful treatment, less root resorption during treatment etc). I felt that these claims were unsubstantiated and misleading to potential patients. The ASA agreed to investigate whether 'the efficacy claims made for Fastbraces were misleading and could be substantiated'.

In a recent letter the ASA informed me that the website had agreed to remove such claims and that 'they will not appear again in the absence of adequate evidence'. As such, the issue was 'informally resolved'.

Given recent research into orthodontic practice websites published in this Journal that demonstrated generally poor compliance with GDC guidelines on ethical advertising,3 this development serves to highlight the risks to colleagues (and patients) and challenges that can occur when manufacturers' claims are presented via a practitioner's own website.

Whilst I have no issues with the use of Fastbraces or any branded orthodontic appliances, if claims are advertised that a dentist (specialist or not) cannot legitimately back up, then it may not only be the ASA that takes umbrage, but also the GDC.