Authors' response

Thank you for the frank feedback of our paper: it is greatly appreciated. The authors are aware of the benefits of maleic acid and the growing evidence to suggest improved efficacy as an irrigant over EDTA. Our purpose with this publication was however to educate and inform dentists upon best clinical practice in irrigation at this current point in time. Maleic acid (7%) is not readily available in the UK and therefore it would seem irresponsible to advocate an irrigant that practitioners could not access. As such we took a pragmatic approach to education on this matter.

Nonetheless we appreciate that it would have been beneficial to readers to have referenced this agent and other possible agents to give a more comprehensive review of the literature and it was an oversight not to have included these in the series.