Authors' response

Abstract

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.” 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.” Dental arch dimensional changesAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 146Issue 2PreviewPlease review the article entitled “Dental arch dimensional changes after adenotonsillectomy in prepubertal children” (Caixeta ACP, Andrade I Jr, Pereira TBJ, Franco LP, Becker HMG, Souki BQ. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:461-8) for an error. After reading it a few times, I think there is a contradiction. Table I and the second sentence of the Discussion report “a shorter mandibular arch length” for the MB group, whereas the last sentence of the Abstract and the Conclusions state the opposite. Full-Text PDF Dental arch dimensional changes after adenotonsillectomy in prepubertal childrenAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 145Issue 4PreviewThe purposes of this study were to investigate the dental arch changes after adenotonsillectomies in prepubertal children and to compare the dental arch dimensions of mouth-breathing and nasal-breathing children. Full-Text PDF