Lip profile changes in extraction patients

Abstract

An article in the November 2020 issue by Mishra et al compared posttreatment lip profile changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion and skeletal Class I malocclusion (Mishra D, Natarajan M, Urala AS. Lip profile changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion of varied growth patterns treated with maxillary premolar extractions: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158:684-93). We noted some errors in the article. In the Abstract, it is mentioned that significant differences in SNA for groups 2-4 were observed, but Table III mentions a nonsignificant difference for SNA. In the Material and Methods section, the standard exposure parameters and film size were given as 65 mA, 7 kVp, and 8 × 10 cm. However, the standard exposure parameters and film size are 10 mA, 70 kVp, and 8 × 10 inches. In Table I, under the heading “Linear soft tissue measurements,” the contours of the soft and hard tissue are reportedly denoted by a red dotted line and a blue line in Figure 2. However, Figure 2 does not include red dotted or blue lines. In Table II, the linear measurements for L1 to NB for pretreatment and posttreatment are given as 7.48 ± 2.29 and 7.48 ± 2.29, but in Figure 4, the linear measurements for L1 to NB for pretreatment and posttreatment are 7.48 and 6.76. In the Results section, the description for Table III is mentioned in terms of significant correlation between different groups. We believe an analysis of variance with post-hoc Dunnett test was used in Table III, so results should be mentioned in terms of significant difference instead of significant correlation. The Results section also mentions significant increases in lower lip length and nasolabial angle posttreatment. In contrast, the first Conclusion reports significant decreases in lower lip length and nasolabial angle posttreatment. The Discussion section mentions that significant increases in the mandibular incisor to NB (degrees and millimeters) were observed in group 2 followed by group 3 compared with group 1. However, Table III shows that there is no significant difference for mandibular incisor to NB (millimeters). The Discussion section also reports that increase in Mp-SN angle and reduction of facial height ratio in group 3 (intermediate angle) followed by group 4 (high angle) and significant difference between skeletal parameters such as SNA (P = 0.003) and ANB angles (P <0.001) for Class II Division 1 malocclusion is shown in Table I. We believe the wrong Table was cited. Lip profile changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion of varied growth patterns treated with maxillary premolar extractions: A pilot studyAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 158Issue 5PreviewThis retrospective pilot study assessed the pre- and posttreatment lip profile changes among adult patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion of varied growth patterns and compared these changes with patients with a skeletal Class I relationship, to identify the dental, skeletal, and soft tissue cephalometric variables that altered the posttreatment lip profile. Full-Text PDF Authors’ responseAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 159Issue 5PreviewThank you for your careful reading of our article reporting changes in lip profiles. We take this opportunity to improve our choice of words and correct several of our errors. Full-Text PDF