Authors’ response

Thank you for your compliments and for your time to share your perspectives on our case report, “Lateral open bite: treatment and stability” (Cabrera MC, Cabrera CAG, de Freitas KMS, Janson G, de Freitas RM. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:701-11). As we discussed in the article, prophylactic management of gingival recession in at-risk orthodontic patients is a controversial issue. Therefore, in this patient, we opted for a more cautious “watch and wait” approach, according to the method of Andlin-Sobocki and Bodin (Andlin-Sobocki A, Bodin L. Dimensional alterations of the gingiva related to changes of facial/lingual tooth position in permanent anterior teeth of children. A 2-year longitudinal study. J Clin Periodontol 1993;20:219-24) and decided to perform the grafts after active treatment, because the teeth would be well aligned and positioned, simplifying achievement of a correct gingival contour. This would be the favorable consequence of this decision. However, on the other hand, it would probably make complete root coverage less predictable, as you mentioned. Treatment decisions are based on a cost-benefit ratio. For this patient, we thought that this was the best way to go. However, perhaps the other way would have been better.

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

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