Management of Class III Extraction with the Miniscrew-Supported Orthodontic Pseudo-Ankylosis (MSOPA) Using Direct Tads
, Nicola Derton 3, Luca Lombardo 1, Roberto Gatto 2 and Silvia Caruso 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors represented a case study of the orthodontic treatment of the young 21 years old patient with skeletal Class III which the extractions of the first lower premolars were performed to obtain a class III camouflage using direct temporary anchorage devices.
They used fixed appliance in the upper and lower archs using an archwire sequence of 0.16 CuNiTi, 19x25 CuNiTi, 19x25 SS.
The paper is worth to be published, Please explain why you choose CuNiTi and SS (AISI 304L) and add information of mini screw material
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained in the paper why we used this arch sequence.
The first phase of orthodontic treatment involves leveling and aligning. During this stage, archwires with desirable stiffness are required to correct vertical and horizontal discrepancies. The following two archwire were used (0.016 CuNiTi and 0.019x0.025 CuNiTi) to reach the working archwire (0.019 × 0.025-inch SS. They were left in place until they were passively engaged in all bracket slots before proceeding to the next in the sequence. The positioning of a steel archwire (0.019x0.025 SS) allowed us to close the spaces through a three-dimensional control of the teeth, reducing the tipping movements and improving the bodily displacement of the tooth. Furthermore, through a rectangular steel archwire it is possible to control the torque of the lower incisors during the closing space’s phase without create an excessive retraction of the lower incisor sector.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A usefull paper for all orthodontists and pediatric dentists.
Even though the authors mention a short conclusion at the end of the DISCUSSION CHAPTER, I suggest them to improve this issue and create a special CONCLUSIONS AREA.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Reviewer #2: A usefull paper for all orthodontists and pediatric dentists.
Even though the authors mention a short conclusion at the end of the DISCUSSION CHAPTER, I suggest them to improve this issue and create a special CONCLUSIONS AREA.
A:thanks for your comments and suggestions. We have added a special paragraph for conclusion.
- Conclusion
Post-treatment records of our patient show a control in facial esthetics from the frontal and lateral perspectives, with a harmonious soft-tissue profile which reflects the typical traits of the patient’s race and first of all pleases her.
The coordination of maxillary and mandibular midline and correction of crowding improved the smile esthetics, although the patient’s skeletal class III remained. Class I canine was achieved and overbite and overjet were normalized by retracting the man-dibular anterior teeth and carring out the bodily mesialization of the posterior sector into to the extraction space.
The “Pseudoankylosis System” used in this case allowed the desired result to be achieved without changing the lower incisal position and without overloading the an-terior sector reducing the risk of further root resorption and patient’s compliance suc-cessfully ending the therapy in 18 months.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper "Management of Class III extraction with the Miniscrew-Supported Orthodontic Pseudo-Ankylosis (MSOPA) using direct 3 tads" is a case report and is of some interest .
The abstract is clear; the introduction is clear but too concise and should be extended.
The case report is well described and well documented; results are well written; the discussion is well conducted and the references cited are recent.
The authors described a III class treatment
Author Response
Reviewer #3: The paper "Management of Class III extraction with the Miniscrew-Supported Orthodontic Pseudo-Ankylosis (MSOPA) using direct 3 tads" is a case report and is of some interest .
The abstract is clear; the introduction is clear but too concise and should be extended.
The case report is well described and well documented; results are well written; the discussion is well conducted and the references cited are recent.
The authors described a III class treatment .
A: thanks for your comments and suggestions. We have further improved the introduction.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
