Abstract
Respected Editor,
An article published on February 2021 by Garg A. reports about a skeletal Class II Division 1 case treated with Forsus FRD. 1 The article was very informative but we have come across some doubts. Kindly, address our queries.
The post treatment cephalometric interpretation (Page 207) reported that the midline was coinciding. How was the midline interpreted from the lateral cephalogram? Further, it also mentioned that the lip competency was achieved. However, the soft tissue was not clearly visible in the lateral cephalogram.
It was mentioned that both the lower second premolars were distobuccally rotated (Occlusal Features, Page 203). However, the lower right second premolar does not seem to be distobuccally rotated (Figure 2e), rather the right first premolar was rotated, which was not mentioned.
The diagnostic summary (Page 205) stated that the patient had retrognathic mandible with horizontal growth pattern. However, the pre-treatment Jarabak ratio was 63.63% (Table 1, Page 204), which should be more than 65% for the horizontal growth pattern. Therefore, the cephalometric readings and the diagnosis were not coinciding.
The maxillary arch was reported to be V-shaped (Crowding/Spacing, Page 203), but a U-shaped maxillary arch was clearly visible in pretreatment photographs (Figure 2a).
The post treatment cephalometric comparison (Page 207) shows that the IMPA was changed from 97° to 110°. However, a study conducted by Yared et al 2 reported that the final inclination more than 95°, in addition to free gingival margin thickness less than 0.5 mm, was directly related to more frequent and more severe recession in the mandibular central incisors. Therefore, how is the inclination of 110° justified?
