Abstract
We would like to comment on an article published in your esteemed journal, authored by Pooja Harish S., Kaarunakara B. C., and Sumitra Reddy, titled “Comparison of Interproximal Reduction Techniques and Proximal Strips: an atomic force microscopic and confocal microscopic study.” 1
Interproximal reduction (IPR) is an important clinical adjunct for the resolution of mild crowding/proclination in borderline cases. However, surface roughness produced by IPR is of major concern for many clinicians, and to determine a better method of IPR which would produce the least iatrogenic effects in clinical situations is the need of the hour; thus, a vivo study on this subject becomes a valuable clinical research work.
While going through the objective of the article (p. 44, line 1, stating “A vivo study was conducted to evaluate the surface roughness produced by two different methods: hand-held mechanical and air-rotor stripping and also by HORICO and Ortho-Organizer strips (Bengaluru, India), before and after polishing with 3M Sof-Lex Finishing Strips under Atomic Force Microscope”), it was overwhelming to find that finally a much-awaited “vivo” study was conducted at the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, KLE Society’s Institute of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, as there is limited literature on quantitative measures of enamel surface roughness and post-interproximal reduction via vivo studies. However, while going through the materials and methods (p. 45, para 1, line 1, stating “A total of 22 extracted premolars of patients indicated with extraction treatment plan for fixed orthodontic mechanotherapy were collected”), it was found that the study was done on extracted premolars.
We therefore have the following queries in this regard:
Can a study performed on extracted teeth be considered as a vivo
1
study? Did the researchers deviate from their objectives while working on the material and methods?