We appreciate Dr. Zuckerman’s interest in our article and are concerned that he feels there was a lack of information and documentation related to the study. However, as a published researcher, Dr. Zuckerman must be aware of the condensation of information required for publication in journals today.
As with most articles, the e-mail address of our corresponding author appeared at the end of the article. It is there so that interested parties can contact authors to access all the individual data related to a study that cannot be part of a published paper due to space/word count restrictions.
We do take exception to the implication that this was not a well-conducted and controlled scientific study. Our three-year clinical evaluation of the two restorative materials was accomplished in accordance with the guidelines established by the American Dental Association to evaluate dentin and enamel adhesives.1 In addition, our study meets all seven criteria for validity assessment proposed by the Center for Evidence-based Medicine.2
We also feel that most of Dr. Zuckerman’s questions were adequately answered in the published text and tables. We provided, for example, inclusion and exclusion criteria for study subjects, lesion descriptions, status of all lesions (not just the two pictured) at baseline and at six, 18 and 36 months (in both table and graph form). The photographs of the one subject were provided only as an example as this was not a case study article. It was also clearly stated that the lesions used in the study were Class V erosion/ abrasion/abfraction lesions.
The term "cervical lesion" was not used since the definition of a Class V lesion is one that occurs on smooth facial and lingual surfaces in the gingival third of teeth. They begin close to the gingiva and may involve a cementum or dentin surface as well as enamel.
The question of whether or not the lesions needed restoration can be debated, since clinical decisions related to this type of lesion include caries activity, sensitivity, structural loss/ integrity and cosmetic liability. However, to eliminate caries and rotary preparation as variables, erosion/abrasion/abfraction lesions were selected that ranged from 1 millimeter to more than 3 mm in depth. No additional tooth structure was removed, and proper explanation was provided to and informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
If Dr. Zuckerman would like to contact us for more detailed information, we would be happy to provide it. We would also like to thank JADA for the opportunity to try to clarify the concerns expressed.
TOP
REFERENCES
