Harris, Kineret, Tolley12 tried to implicate heritability to root resorption exclusively though radiographic equivalence between the pattern of resorption intensity after orthodontic treatment in 103 siblings. Neither dental nor facial morphology or any other etiopathogenic factor of root resorption was considered, whatsoever.It is clear in this study that the authors´ main goal was to attribute root resorption during orthodontic treatment to heritability in order to lighten the professional’s share of responsibility before patients and society. It seems more logic that the professional should try to predict root resorption when considering on treatment plan the root and alveolar crest morphology, the type of apex, crown-root proportion, and avoiding procedures known to cause more resorption. If a patient presents unfavorable morphology and still needs procedures associated with a higher risk of resorption, than he or she must be warned and informed that apical root resorption will be a biological cost to regain estetics and function. Considering on this paper: (1) the limitations to evaluate apical resorption in panoramic and cephalometric radiographs; (2) the absence of dental and alveolar crest morphology analysis; and (3) the lack of a control group in order to compare if the results would be equivalent in a similar population with no family ties but with same maxilofacial conditions; one can affirm that the scientific credibility of the conclusions are severely damaged. The conclusions drawn by the authors about genotype and phenotype concerning root resorption seem unfounded, since there was no cell analysis or gene identification method to permit such inferences.
Root resorption; Dental resorption; Genetic predisposition; Heritability; Orthodontic movement; Induced tooth movement
