Authors’ response

We are grateful to the Dr Todd Connell for his careful reading and relevant comment on our article. We agree that there was a miswriting in the Abstract and the Conclusions.

In fact, the mandibular arch length of the mouth-breathers at baseline was shorter than that of the nasal-breathers (MB, 22.28 mm; NB, 23.38 mm), as presented in Table I. As we stated in the Discussion, the maxillary and mandibular perimeters and arch lengths in the MB group were similar to those of the NB group, except that mandibular arch length was shorter. Our data corroborate previous described findings. In the MB group, the extension of the head, the tongue passing over the mandibular incisor border, and the increased lower lip pressure on the buccal surfaces of the mandibular incisors might retrocline these teeth, partially explaining the shortening of the arch length.

In the Abstract, instead of “The mouth-breathing children showed a deeper palatal vault, a larger mandibular width, and a larger mandibular arch length in comparison with the nasal-breathing children” it should be “The mouth-breathing children showed a deeper palatal vault, a larger mandibular width, and a shorter mandibular arch length in comparison with the nasal-breathing children.”

In the Conclusions, instead of “The MB group showed deeper palatal vaults, greater mandibular intercanine and intermolar widths, and greater mandibular arch lengths in comparison with the NB children at T0,” it should be “The MB group showed deeper palatal vaults, greater mandibular intercanine and intermolar widths, and shorter mandibular arch lengths in comparison with the NB children at T0.”

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

Apr 6, 2017 | Posted by in Orthodontics | Comments Off on Authors’ response
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes