Next Article in Journal
Control of a Variable Blade Pitch Wind Turbine Subject to Gust Wind and Actuators Saturation
Next Article in Special Issue
Age Estimation Based on Pulp–Tooth Volume Ratio of Anterior Teeth in Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Images in a Selected Population: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Journal
Generating Network Intrusion Detection Dataset Based on Real and Encrypted Synthetic Attack Traffic
Previous Article in Special Issue
Functional Evaluation of a “Lingual Ring” Oral Device Applied on Patients Affected by Temporo-Mandibular Disorders TMDs: A Comparative Clinical Trial
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Ectopic Eruption of the First Permanent Molar in the Maxilla: Cephalometric Features of 13 Pediatric Patients

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(17), 7869; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11177869
by Daniela Di Venere, Alessandra Laforgia, Paola Lorusso, Saverio Capodiferro *,‡ and Massimo Corsalini
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(17), 7869; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11177869
Submission received: 3 August 2021 / Revised: 19 August 2021 / Accepted: 24 August 2021 / Published: 26 August 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the great work!

Unfortunately the sample size is not big enough, but I think it is a good start.

I missed the following information:

  1. a reference to your sample size, or power analysis;
  2. Review Board protocol number. Even if it's "not applicable", it should have a protocol number.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. 

The references to a small number of patients has been reported in the final lines, and highlighted in the revised versions.

With regard to the line 

Institutional Review Board Statement: “Not applicable.”

such question has been previously discussed and defined with the associate editor before submission.

Thank you very much for your kind suggestion and attention to review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The present study addresses the ectopic eruption of the first permanent molar in several paediatric patients.

 

Here goes a few of my concerns:

Please remove the reference to Figure 1 from the Introduction.

 

The authors use both terms “upper” and “maxillary” to define the position on the upper jaw. Although both are correct some are more used in some countries and the other on others. May the authors pick one term and be standard through the all manuscript?

 

Change to: “From a total of 1935 subjects that were referred to the Dental Unit of the Universitary…”

 

How many patients from 6 to 12 years were screened? Were all the 1935 subjects? If not, were all the 6 to 12 years screened? Was still a convenience sample? Or the sample selection has followed any other sampling method?

 

What was the average and median age of the group?

 

Is the patients ethnic group available? Or nationalaty? Were they representative of any particular sub-population group?

 

9 exclusions represent what exclusion rate?

 

How was the randomization of the control group conducted?

 

What was the average and median age of the control group? Is the ethnic group available?

 

Were intra- and inter-investigater reproducibility tested? Which methods/test was used and what were the results?

 

May you put an arrow signaling the ectopic eruption on Figure 1? Is it possible to add a few more clinical cases?

Author Response

Dear Reviewers, please find herein a point to point response in red colour to your kind suggestions; all changes have been done accordingly. Thank you very much for your time to improve our paper.

Please remove the reference to Figure 1 from the Introduction.

DONE

 

The authors use both terms “upper” and “maxillary” to define the position on the upper jaw. Although both are correct some are more used in some countries and the other on others. May the authors pick one term and be standard through the all manuscript?

 DONE

Change to: “From a total of 1935 subjects that were referred to the Dental Unit of the Universitary…”

 DONE

How many patients from 6 to 12 years were screened? Were all the 1935 subjects? If not, were all the 6 to 12 years screened? Was still a convenience sample? Or the sample selection has followed any other sampling method?

 THE NUMBER IS THE GLOBAL NUMBER OF REGISTRED CASES. AGED 6-12 PATIENTS WERE SELECTED AND AMONG THESE AFFECTED PATIENTS

What was the average and median age of the group?

 6-12 AGE WAS THE RANGE OF PATIENTS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY

Is the patients ethnic group available? Or nationalaty? Were they representative of any particular sub-population group?

 THIS IS A MISSING DATA, ADDED AS PATIENT WERE ALL CAUCASIAN

9 exclusions represent what exclusion rate?

 INCOMPLETE DATA

How was the randomization of the control group conducted?

 NO PECULIAR CRITERIA WERE ADOPTED, JUST NORMAL ERUPTION OF THE SAME TOOTH

What was the average and median age of the control group? Is the ethnic group available?

 DONE

Were intra- and inter-investigater reproducibility tested? Which methods/test was used and what were the results?

 PLEASE BETTER DEFINE WHAT ASKED. THE CURRENT STUDY IS AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY FROM CASES COLLECTED ALSO RETROSPECTIVELY

May you put an arrow signaling the ectopic eruption on Figure 1? Is it possible to add a few more clinical cases?

DONE

Back to TopTop