It is quite pleasing for me to know that the paper published from your Journal, encountered this interest and I would like to quote my answers to the questions posed.

  1. Our aim was to investigate prevalence and degree of OIRR after 6 months of active treatment with fixed appliances. We concluded that clinically significant resorption was diagnosed in 4% of the patients at 6 months of treatment, referring that, this article is a part of a larger project at which possible correlation of the existence of root resorption at 6 months with the severity of root resorption at the end of treatment will be investigated. Hopefully this paper will be published soon.

  2. Tooth movement was beyond our goals to be investigated for possible correlation with root resorption.

  3. The Orthodontic clinic's protocols concerning space closure after the leveling and alignment phase include the same wires and procedures for any patient and all the selected patients received the same treatment approach. That would further mean that the method of treatment was “standardized” for every patient.

  4. We did precede a power analysis for the patient's number to be included to the material. Though, we decided to exceed this number as our goal, taking into account the expected drop outs we might face as this clinical trial referred to several radiographic examinations and recalls in a long period of time.