Does your Journal publish only evidence-based articles? Is your orthodontic practice supported by treatment that is evidence-based? For that matter, do you even know? I am captivated by interest in the scientific community on the subject of evidence-based treatment, and I applaud this trend as it reaches into all corners of dentistry. The extension of evidence-based treatment into dental schools as well as clinical practice is the most exciting aspect of this change. With regard to the publication of evidence-based material in this Journal, I have two points to make. First, the peer-review process is your first line of defense in the search for scientific findings that you can believe in and put into practice. Two or more experts in the field scrutinize every article published in the AJODO. Nearly 40% of the articles submitted fail to survive this test and are rejected. The remaining articles are revised until they meet the high standards of the review process. This is not an easy task. You and your patients are the benefactors of this ongoing scrutiny. But, no matter how diligent the referees are in their critique of research findings, you must also be equipped to determine what it takes to produce an evidence-based article. Using this approach to determine the best treatment plan for a specific patient may be time-consuming, but it provides a useful means of making clinical decisions. The most beneficial studies are reproducible, include control groups, have an adequate sample size, randomize subjects to different treatment modalities, and control for the effects of different variables. The strongest evidence is gleaned from randomized clinical trials. Properly performed meta-analysis studies provide the second-best evidence. The third level of evidence is retrospective or prospective longitudinal studies that monitor a group over time. Fourth, is the review article. Fifth is a cross-sectional study that analyzes data from a single point in time. Case studies are typically anecdotal and are ranked sixth. When reviewing a study, you should take time to determine the purpose, the results, and the validity of those results. Unfortunately, authors will occasionally misinterpret the data, and this must be taken into account. Finally, you should determine whether the subject of the study is relevant to your patient’s needs. With accessibility to refereed journals and with an understanding of what makes a good evidence-based article, you will be in a position to practice evidence-based orthodontics. In line with the subject of this editorial, can anything be learned from the first article in this issue, “Autotransplantation of premolars to replace maxillary incisors: A comparison with natural incisors,” by Professor Arild Stenvik and his group at the University of Oslo? The article is a good example of a retrospective longitudinal study. The sample is adequate in size and includes patients treated with a similar procedure over a 6-year period. Only those still under treatment were excluded. The authors conclude that the overall status of the transplanted premolars and of the surrounding hard and soft periodontal tissues indicates that this treatment procedure may be recommended for patients with 1 or more missing maxillary incisors. Is this article on autotransplantation as strong as it could be if it were a randomized clinical trial? Of course not, but this treatment procedure is so complex that it may be years before another study of this size can be completed. It would be a disservice to our current patients to overlook the results of this study while waiting for a randomized study. I invite you to read this article with the skill and the thoughtfulness of a reviewer with red pen in hand. You will recognize it as an excellent addition to your arsenal of evidence-based treatment procedures.