Re: Response to: Does proclination of maxillary incisors really affect the sagittal position of point A? Ali Altug Bicakci, Ozkan Semih Cankaya, Serhat Mertoglu, Nurbengu Yilmaz, Burcu Kocoglu Altan. The Angle Orthodontist. 2013;83(6):943-947
To: Editor, The Angle Orthodontist
-
As I mentioned in my study, the final records are the results of the overall treatment, which were taken just after the debonding. In our clinic we use 0.18” slot brackets, and especially in Class II division 2 Roth prescription patients, we routinely use 0.18” × 0.25” stainless steel wires as the final archwires for about 3 months. Consequently, it is not important how we performed the proclination, because we finally repositioned the upper incisors with an optimum inclination. Nevertheless, I may write my general treatment approach in Class II division 2 cases. I prefer bonding both upper and lower arches in the first appointment by placing a Guray bite raiser to eliminate primary contacts caused by deep bite and placing 0.18” × 0.18” thermal nickel-titanium wires as soon as possible to maintain root movement in the initial stages of leveling.
-
Mathematically, 1 mm posterior movement of point A should produce a 1-degree decrease in SNA angle. However, in our study, 1.04 mm posterior movement of point A produced only an 0.18-degree decrease in SNA angle. Therefore, the other points of the angle should have moved. We could not attribute this movement to sella, because sella is one of the most stable points in the cranium. Thus, the movement of nasion was considered the only option for explaining this finding. Downward and forward movement of nasion is not a new finding or our claim; it has been shown before in different studies. Of course, downward and forward movement of the maxillary complex is also a possible movement pattern; however, this did not occur in our patients, or only minimally.
-
Although it was written and explained correctly in the manuscript, in the table we mistakenly wrote −0.48 mm instead of 0.48 mm.