The authors stated that it would have been wise to wait for the second molar eruption, so why could not they wait for complete alignment of the second molars for a stable occlusion in the end? Swati Acharya Pritam Mohanty Bhubaneswar, India Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:636-7 0889-5406/$36.00 Ó 2017 by the American Association of Orthodontists. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.01.009 REFERENCES 1. Hsu YL, Chang CH, Roberts WE. Canine-lateral incisor transposition: controlling root resorption with a bone-anchored T-loop retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:1039-50. 2. Sameshima GT, Asgarifar KO. Assessment of root resorption and root shape: periapical vs panoramic films. Angle Orthod 2001;71: 185-9. 3. Dudic A, Giannopoulou C, Leuzinger M, Kiliaridis S. Detection of api- cal root resorption after orthodontic treatment by using panoramic radiology and cone-beam computed tomography of super-high res- olution. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:434-7. Authors' response W e acknowledge the compliment “for a good finished result,” and we appreciate the readers’ careful attention to detail in examining our case report (Hsu YL, Chang CH, Roberts WE. Canine-lateral incisor transposition: controlling root resorption with a bone- anchored T-loop retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:1039-50). We are pleased to respond to the inquiries and concerns. First, a posttreatment periapical radiograph or a computed tomography image is ideal documentation to assess root resorption, but under the circumstances we did not believe additional radiation exposure for this patient was indicated. We were satisfied with the routine posttreatment panoramic radiograph and clin- ical evaluation. Second, we agree that the pretreatment facial photo- graphs were not ideal, and we will strive for a stricter adherence to the American Board of Orthodontics stan- dards in the future. However, we believe that the entire set of pretreatment clinical records was reliable for an accurate diagnosis and treatment plan. Third, in terms of treatment timing, we prefer to bond and align the second molars. However, early treatment was indicted for this patient to take advan- tage of the high position of the transposed canine to decrease the risk of damaging adjacent teeth and soft tissue as the transposition was corrected. Waiting until the second molars were aligned would have improved the finished occlusion but also increased the treatment time. We opted for controlling the dura- tion of treatment. Once again, we appreciate the feedback on this case report and hope our response has fully addressed the concerns. Yu Lin Hsu Chris H. Chang Hsinchu, Taiwan W. Eugene Roberts Indianapolis, Ind Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:637 0889-5406/$36.00 Ó 2017 by the American Association of Orthodontists. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.01.010 Good science, bad science, and junk science G ood science must be the best alternative for all pro- fessionals who are committed to maintaining and improving people's health. This kind of thinking, howev- er, is not shared by all orthodontists. Some of them consider that orthodontics is fundamentally an art, leav- ing behind the importance of science and its develop- ment. Albert Einstein once said, “The important thing is to never stop questioning.” 1 So, we can ask ourselves, what are the real goals of orthodontic education?  Skilled clinicians in various orthodontic techniques as the result of intensive training vs professionals capable of making clinical decisions reasoned as a consequence of learning science.  Proficient clinicians in the manufacture and use of orthodontic appliances vs specialists aware of the physical and biologic bases that make the working of these devices possible.  Experts in the use of the latest generation in ortho- dontic technology vs clinicians who prudently use diagnostic and therapeutic methods that have not proven to be truly effective and efficient. These different outcomes of orthodontic education are not mutually exclusive but are complementary and necessary. As Dr Behrents 2 rightly pointed out, the trial-and- error time must stay in the past. Although with this approach, many advances in orthodontics were achieved, we cannot continue to use it today. Imagine what it would be like allowing medicine today to develop Readers' forum 637 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics April 2017  Vol 151  Issue 4