Yes, canine retraction is happening!

We thank the Editor for giving us the chance to respond to the comments on our article, “Evaluation of corticotomy-facilitated orthodontics and piezocision in rapid canine retraction” (Abbas NH, Sabet NE, Hassan IT. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:473-80), published in April 2016.

We want to acknowledge the readers for addressing the way the results have been measured, reported, and interpreted, and to give us this valuable chance to clarify to the readers that they had misinterpreted the results in Table I. Nothing in the text or the table caption stated that the numbers in the table are “cumulative” values of canine movement. The table shows the mean amount of canine movement at each successive 2-week time interval. The text was clear in stating that the rates of movement were measured.

Thus, the claim that there is more molar acceleration than canine acceleration in our study results has no basis. This proves that our data support our own conclusions and completely synchronizes with the orthodontic literature. We find this topic so important, interesting, and popular that careless reading should be avoided.

As for Figure 6, we understand that it should have been obvious to the readers that this is an illustrative figure that should have been magnified to guarantee that readers can easily construe it. Verifying that, this is not a careless mistake. But still the authors declared that it would have been clearer to put another figure with the actual measurement.

Canine root length was measured from the cusp tip to the root apex on the precomputed and postcomputed tomographic radiographs. If there was a volumetric evaluation, more numbers would have been given, but this is not the case here. We would like to update the readers that another study is being undertaken to address the root resorption issue and use the volumetric measurement tools to investigate root conditions.