The recent case report on nonsurgical correction of a Class III malocclusion shows an outstanding result from orthodontic treatment alone (Moullas AT, Palomo JM, Gass JR, Amberman BD, White J, Gustovich D. Nonsurgical treatment of a patient with a Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129(Suppl):S111-8). This suggests a discussion on the limitations of orthodontic treatment strategies. Nevertheless, the wisdom still holds. The dilemma we must confront is that, in India, most Class III patients are not willing to accept surgical therapy and insist on orthodontic treatment. In this case report, acceptable facial esthetics were obtained irrespective of what the cephalometric numbers demonstrate. The incisor mandibular plane angle decreased from 94° to 75°, and there was no change in the linear measurement of maxillary 1 to NA, with no influence of growth as depicted in the superimposition tracing. If stability is not a major concern even with a low IMPA (of course with a cooperative patient), one could treat many surgical patients as nonsurgical orthodontic patients. As ardent believers in Tweed’s philosophy and concepts, we think it is a harsh challenge. Evidence-based orthodontics is still challengeable in terms of achieving good occlusal balance and facial esthetics. Even though a significant change in the ANB angle was shown with an increase of 3°, the persistence of the negative value (from –6° to –3°) demonstrates that the usefulness of nonsurgical orthodontic treatment on skeletal patterns is limited. At this juncture, many questions arise. How does the soft tissue curtain respond to these kinds of cases? Does individuality matter and to what extent? Can one predict which patients will obtain good esthetics irrespective of dental positions? Certainly, the compensatory mechanisms and predictions barring cephalometric numbers are worth further study. In general, this case report shows that greater discrepancies can be corrected by or thodontic treatment alone in the anteroposterior plane. Thus, the orthodontist has greater latitude for correcting skeletal Class III cases within the anatomic and physiologic constraints. It is still to be resolved whether nonsurgical treatment is the best modality for a skeletal Class III patient, or whether it is one of several possible therapeutic choices. But it is quite clear that it is the strategy of providing acceptable results with a noninvasive method (cost/benefits). Arunachalam Sivakumar Ashima Valiathan Manipal, India Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:273 0889-5406/$32.00 Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.07.007