This letter has been written in response to the study by Aliaga-Del Castillo et al in the June 2021 issue of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Aliaga-Del Castillo A, Bellini-Pereira SA, Vilanova L, Miranda F, Massaro C, Arriola-Guillén LE, et al. Dental arch changes after open bite treatment with spurs associated with posterior build-ups in the mixed dentition: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021;159:714-23).
We would like to pose a few questions regarding this interesting study evaluating the dental arch dimensional changes after anterior open bite treatment with bonded spurs associated with posterior build-ups in mixed dentition.
Was the pretreatment craniofacial characteristics of all the patients included in the study similar? Can you elaborate on it?
The difference in the nature and severity of habits among the population may alter the success and failure rates. Can you tell us whether all the patients had the same nature and severity?
Anterior open bite >1 mm was shown to be included in the study. The extent of anterior open bite severity is important to determine the amount of overbite correction. Can you further comment on this?
The reliability of the occlusal plane as a reference plane to measure anterior dentoalveolar vertical development is questionable as the results show changes in the molar and incisor vertical position. Can you share the reason for choosing the occlusal plane as the reference plane?
The text mentionedage and sex distribution were similar in both groups. However, the baseline data table showed wide variation in the sex distribution. Females were 70.8% of the spurs associated with the posterior build-ups (SBU) group and 56% in bonded spurs alone (S) group. Males were 29.2% in the SBU group and 44% in the S group. Can you elaborate more on this?
On sample size calculation, 24 patients in the SBU group and 25 patients in the S group have shown to be adequate to confirm the results. Can you explain the reason for mentioning the requirement of a greater sample in the study’s limitations?
We thank the authors sincerely for conducting this study, considering our questions, and providing more information about the interesting findings presented.