Digital Occlusion Analysis after Orthodontic Treatment: Capabilities of the Intraoral Scanner and T-Scan Novus System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This study makes a comparison between intraoral digital scanner and digital examination with T-Scan. The aim of the study is very interesting, but the method is not clear enough, and the results should be discussed in a more suitable way. Therefore, I have some major comments:

 

1- The patients enrolled in the study are not homogenous, a more strict selection or a sample enlargement with stratification would be necessary.

2- How many clinicians performed the measurements? In what position was the patient during measurements?

3- The materials and methods chapter is not adequately precise in describing the procedures used.

4- There is no statistical analysis. How did you analyze data? This is the main limitation of the present study: besides a qualitative description of a single case there is no objective assessment of the data.

5- The images’ quality should be improved, figures 4A and 4B are not so clear.

 

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1

 

This study makes a comparison between intraoral digital scanner and digital examination with T-Scan. The aim of the study is very interesting, but the method is not clear enough, and the results should be discussed in a more suitable way. Therefore, I have some major comments: 

• The patients enrolled in the study are not homogenous, a more strict selection or a sample enlargement with stratification would be necessary.

Тhey are not homogeneous in terms of gender and age, but they are treated in the same way, identical methods are applied in their retention period, the clinician who performed the scans with both devices is the same. The number is optimal for this kind of study. At our university, over 30 units is considered statistically significant.

• How many clinicians performed the measurements? In what position was the patient during measurements?

Only one on both devices. Тhe patient is in an upright position, with the back of the dental chair at maximum straight position, the head is straight without touching the headrest.

• The materials and methods chapter is not adequately precise in describing the procedures used.

The information was added. Thank you!

• There is no statistical analysis. How did you analyze data? This is the main limitation of the present study: besides a qualitative description of a single case there is no objective assessment of the data.

The limitation was added at the end of the discussion part. Additional table with results was added, too. Thank you!

• The images’ quality should be improved, figures 4A and 4B are not so clear.

These images are screenshots from the program. The quality can’t be improved, but in bigger size they are readable. Thank you!

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CORRECTIONS!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors the paper is really interesting, well conducted and fits the objectives of the journal; but it is necessary to review some points in order to improve the quality of the paper: 
First, i ask you to check the plagiarism of your article using specific sites to get a similitary report

About the Title of the article,I suggest you to modify it and add the type of article.

Please be sure to use only keywords accordingly to medical subject headings (Mesh word) for a better indexing.

The introduction section is very short and is needed to add other references to increase the quality of the manuscript about TMD and digital technologies and teledentistry that are useful to improve your introdiction

[doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008771]; [Doi:  https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12111920] ; [DOI: 10.1080/08869634.2022.2137129]

You need to review the grammar and English of your article

I suggest you add a table with the list of abbreviations used in the text.

Please expand conclusion section with main results and future perspectives of this study

I suggest to add a Section to add all the limitation of the study

 

Thank You,

Kind Regards

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2

 

 

Dear Authors the paper is really interesting, well conducted and fits the objectives of the journal; but it is necessary to review some points in order to improve the quality of the paper: 

First, i ask you to check the plagiarism of your article using specific sites to get a similitary report.

We did it. Thank you!

 

About the Title of the article, I suggest you to modify it and add the type of article.

We did it. Thank you!

 

Please be sure to use only keywords accordingly to medical subject headings (Mesh word) for a better indexing.

Thank you for your advice, but I couldn’t find appropriate synonyms.

 

The introduction section is very short and is needed to add other references to increase the quality of the manuscript about TMD and digital technologies and teledentistry that are useful to improve your introdiction

doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008771

Doi:  https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12111920

DOI: 10.1080/08869634.2022.2137129

 

The additional articles were added. Some of them are ours. If you think that is not appropriate self-citation, I will change them. Thank you!

 

You need to review the grammar and English of your article.

We sent it to a native speaker. Thank you!

 

I suggest you add a table with the list of abbreviations used in the text.

We did it. Thank you!

 

Please expand conclusion section with main results and future perspectives of this study.

We did it. Thank you!

 

I suggest to add a Section with all the limitation of the study.

 

 The additional section with limitation was added, after the Discussion part. Thank you!

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CORRECTIONS!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This work reports the " Digital occlusion analysis after orthodontic treatment – capabilities of the intraoral scanner and T-Scan system". A well written manuscript with interesting findings. Additionally, the author gives a reasonable explanation for the experimental phenomena. However, there are still some issues needing to be clarified before acceptance for publication.

Abstract: writing is too generalized. The main theme of this paper is not described in the abstract. Abstract section should be concisely reflected the content and summarize the problem, the method, the results, and the conclusions. The abstract needs to be improved. Demonstrate in the abstract novelty, practical significance. Please add more qualitative and quantitative results of your work.

In the introduction section, more literature paper have to be included to explain the subject better. Some giving citations need to be check such as [16,17,18], as they may not provide the required information in a sentence. The introduction section has been written beautifully but need to include recent published papers.

After analyzing the literature, show before formulating the goal of the "blank" spots. Which has not been previously done by other researchers? You must show the importance of the research being undertaken. Show what will be the new research approach in this article. You need to show a hypothesis. In the last paragraph of the introduction, add scientific novelty and practical relevance. Add a clear purpose to the article.

There is an interesting approach and design exists, I just propose to emphasis the practical significance of the presented methodology in several points of article.

The results section needs to be improved according to using proper citations and support the findings. Please improve all results with 5-6 lines with commenting on the figures.

Especially, discussion part of the manuscript is well enough and highly satisfying. However, the conclusions section needs to improve with selected and highlighted main findings. In conclusion section, it is necessary to more clearly show the novelty of the article and the advantages of the proposed method. Add qualitative and quantitative results of your work. Please try to emphasize your novelty, put some quantifications, and comment on the limitations. This is a very common way to write conclusions for a learned academic journal. The conclusions should highlight the novelty and advance in understanding presented in the work.

Language used in the manuscript is generally satisfying. However, writers should pay more attention of singular / plural nouns. Also, they should control the spell check/ punctuation of words and sentences. Please check all manuscript for language and misspellings. Also, please recheck upper and lower case letter. In addition, spaces should be added between words and numbers. The authors can use suitable grammar-checking software / use the help of a native English speaker to correct these mistakes. Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in paper.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3

 

This work reports the " Digital occlusion analysis after orthodontic treatment – capabilities of the intraoral scanner and T-Scan system". A well written manuscript with interesting findings. Additionally, the author gives a reasonable explanation for the experimental phenomena. However, there are still some issues needing to be clarified before acceptance for publication.

Abstract: writing is too generalized. The main theme of this paper is not described in the abstract. Abstract section should be concisely reflected the content and summarize the problem, the method, the results, and the conclusions. The abstract needs to be improved. Demonstrate in the abstract novelty, practical significance. Please add more qualitative and quantitative results of your work.

The information was added! Thank you!

In the introduction section, more literature paper have to be included to explain the subject better. Some giving citations need to be check such as [16,17,18], as they may not provide the required information in a sentence. The introduction section has been written beautifully but need to include recent published papers.

The authors were checked. And more articles were included in the article. Thank you!

After analyzing the literature, show before formulating the goal of the "blank" spots. Which has not been previously done by other researchers? You must show the importance of the research being undertaken. Show what will be the new research approach in this article. You need to show a hypothesis. In the last paragraph of the introduction, add scientific novelty and practical relevance. Add a clear purpose to the article.

The information was added! Thank you!

There is an interesting approach and design exists, I just propose to emphasis the practical significance of the presented methodology in several points of article.

The information was added! Thank you!

The results section needs to be improved according to using proper citations and support the findings. Please improve all results with 5-6 lines with commenting on the figures.

The information was added! Thank you!

Especially, discussion part of the manuscript is well enough and highly satisfying. However, the conclusions section needs to improve with selected and highlighted main findings. In conclusion section, it is necessary to more clearly show the novelty of the article and the advantages of the proposed method. Add qualitative and quantitative results of your work. Please try to emphasize your novelty, put some quantifications, and comment on the limitations. This is a very common way to write conclusions for a learned academic journal. The conclusions should highlight the novelty and advance in understanding presented in the work.

The information was added! Thank you!

Language used in the manuscript is generally satisfying. However, writers should pay more attention of singular / plural nouns. Also, they should control the spell check/ punctuation of words and sentences. Please check all manuscript for language and misspellings. Also, please recheck upper and lower case letter. In addition, spaces should be added between words and numbers. The authors can use suitable grammar-checking software / use the help of a native English speaker to correct these mistakes. Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in paper.

We sent it to a native speaker. Thank you!

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CORRECTIONS!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

-          Please specify the type of study in the title

-          How was the sample size calculated?

-          what does it mean :“Dental arches normally have different width according to personality or age” (Line 52)?

-          specify the aim of the work in more detail at the end of the introduction

-          Line 114: why “balanced natural occlusion” if is an occlusion orthodontically determined?

-          Figure 1: The picture is not the best. It is recommended to replace it.

-          Figure 4: Some numbers are not visible

-          Specify the limits of the study and what innovations it brings to the international literature

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 4

 

• Please specify the type of study in the title

I did it. Thank you!

-          How was the sample size calculated?

This information was added in the part for Limitations. Thank you!

-          what does it mean :“Dental arches normally have different width according to personality or age” (Line 52)?

Some details were added. Thank you!

-          specify the aim of the work in more detail at the end of the introduction

The information was added. Thank you!

-          Line 114: why “balanced natural occlusion” if is an occlusion orthodontically determined?

I am prosthodontics and for me “natural” means “not artificial”. I correct it. Thank you!

-          Figure 1: The picture is not the best. It is recommended to replace it.

I replaced it. Thank you!

-          Figure 4: Some numbers are not visible

These images are screenshots from the program. The quality can’t be improved, but in bigger size they are readable. Thank you!

-          Specify the limits of the study and what innovations it brings to the international literature

The additional section with limitation was added, after the Discussion part. Thank you!

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CORRECTIONS!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for addressing my comments. However, I still think that the lack of objective data analysis and inferential statistics is a major limitation. Moreover, "at our university 30 subjects is  statistically significant" is not an acceptable response, sample size estimations does not work that way.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1-2

 

Dear authors, thank you for addressing my comments. However, I still think that the lack of objective data analysis and inferential statistics is a major limitation. Moreover, "at our university 30 subjects is  statistically significant" is not an acceptable response, sample size estimations does not work that way.

Sorry if my answer offended you, it wasn't intentional! I'm really sorry!

You’re right. A minimum of 30 observations is considered sufficient to conduct statistical analysis, but it's a descriptive study design, and our goal was to describe the sample characteristics without making any inferences. It’s a preliminary study, and we propose an occlusion analysis protocol after orthodontic treatment integrating an intraoral scanner and T-Scan Novus. The selection of such type of patients is difficult considering the duration of their treatment (not less than 2 years). We plan to broaden the research with data collection of specific occlusion indicators for more precise analysis.

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CORRECTIONS!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the changes.

Please improve the background. The images still aren't appropriate. 

 

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 4-2

 

Thank you for the changes.

Please improve the background.

I add more articles. Thank you!

The images still aren't appropriate. 

I changed them! Thank you!

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CORRECTIONS!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx