RE: response to: Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage. The Angle Orthodontist. 2014;84:76–87

To: Editor, The Angle Orthodontist

We are grateful for the active interest expressed by Dr. Celikoglu in “Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage”.

Our response to the letter to the editor:

• 1) As Dr Celikoglu mentioned, this clinical trial was a prospective randomized study. Only the untreated control group was obtained from the orthodontic archives of the Gazi University.

• 2) The criticism made in the letter about the CONSORT requirements or PRISMA statement had already been done and also the sample calculation at the beginning of the study, otherwise this study would not have been published in such a valuable science citation indexed journal.

• 3) Patients were treated by the three researchers (Işık Aslan B, Küçükkaraca E and Turkoz C) in the study with the same treatment protocol, all the cephalograms were traced and measurements were made by one researcher (KE). The researcher was blinded at the time of tracing the films and measuring the parameters.

• 4) After reading your remark about the phase of pubertal growth, we have additionally analyzed the each patient according to the phase of pubertal growth and development period, no relation could be found between mandibular growth results and the phase of pubertal growth statistically.

• 5) The landmark identification, tracing, and measurements in randomly selected patients were done by only one researcher (KE) meticulously and all of the procedures containing the landmark identification, tracing and measurements were repeated by the same researcher. The ICC values being very high could be related to the high quality of the cephalograms and the meticulous work of the researcher.