Author’s response

We agree with Dr Benson’s comments on the first conclusion of the systematic review. On reflection, the conclusion could (and should) be amended to “because of the limitations of successful bonding with conventional glass ionomer, it cannot be recommended.”

The studies citied for evidence for this conclusion used Ketac Cem and Fuji Ortho LC, respectively, which we and the authors categorized as glass ionomer cements. However, to be more precise, Fuji Ortho LC can be considered a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. There has already been some evidence to date about the acceptable bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomers. But we are unaware of in-vivo research with respect to demineralization and agree that a randomized clinical trial would be the best way to go forward.

We accept Dr Benson’s final comment about the inaccurate use of “decalcification” and hope we haven’t upset too many cariologists!

Finally, we are thankful for the recognition of the effort put into carrying out a thorough systematic review and hope that this response addresses all of Dr Benson’s queries.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Apr 13, 2017 | Posted by in Orthodontics | Comments Off on Author’s response
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes