OT-Equator® Attachments Comparison for Retaining an Early Loaded Implant Overdenture on Two or Three Implants: 1 Year RCT Preliminary Data
, Gabriele Cervino 2,*, Marco Montanari 3, Roberto Scrascia 4, Emiliano Ferrari 5, Alessio Casucci 6, Erta Xhanari 7, Saturnino Marco Lupi 8, Silvio Meloni 1, Francesco Mattia Ceruso 9, Ruggero Rodriguez y Baena 8 and Marco Cicciù 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of “OT-Equator® attachments comparison for retaining an early 2 loaded implant overdenture: 1 year RCT preliminary data” for Applied Sciences journal
In general, the manuscript is well written and easy to understand. The topic is interesting for the readers. The authors have evaluated the outcomes of early loaded mandibular overdentures placed on two or three implants. They have included a total of 34 patients (14 in the test group, 20 in control group) which have been followed up for one year. The main limitation is the small sample size, as the authors have also pointed out, but the advantage of their results is that this is one of the few in vivo randomized controlled trials. Therefore, I recommend acceptance of this manuscript, with minor changes.
- English language:
Line 102- 2 weeks postoperatively (“days” is redundant)
Line 197- participate (not participate)
Line 245- similar (not simile)
Line 271- …IS not needed.
- An error in the text appeared in “Implant and prosthesis failure” section, in the first sentence.
“…while, no implants were lost in the CONTROL group.”
3. References should be placed before punctuation in the text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
many thanks for your suggestions, we have revised the text according to all your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors on their study. Implant borne overdenture is a cost-effective treatment modality for the edentulous lower jaw that has significant impact on the well-being of our patients, especially the elderly. However, there are few randomized clinical trials in the literature that follows up the different implant borne overdentures and reports both prosthetic and surgical, both clinical and radiological outcomes depending on the number of implants placed. Therefore, the manuscript should be of interest to the readers of the Journal.
According to instructions to authors citations should be placed in brackets within the sentence.
In row 91 I suggest revising flapless flap to flapless procedure.
In row 92 CONSORT guidelines dictate that authors should describe the method for randomization and add a CONSORT diagram.
I suggest elaborating on the specifics of the implants used in the study.
Table 1. Why is there a separate row for mean implant length and diameter I, II, and I again?
I suggest that in table 1. The SD should be displayed for continuous data.
As the kind of implant used may influence the primary and secondary outcome variables, I suggest adding this as a weakness of the study in the discussion section.
I suggest adding the OHIP questionnaire in appendix.
I would like to congratulate the authors on their work. Long-term follow up of the cases in this RCT would add to the evidence on the ideal number of implants used in overdenture rehabilitation of the edentulous lower jaw.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
many thanks for your suggestions, we have added the point you suggested in the discussions and revised the text.
