Anterior Hyperfunction Syndrome: Literature Review and Conceptual Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for the manuscript ID: clinpract-3101919 entitled “Anterior Hyperfunction Syndrome: Conceptual Model”

 

The topic is interesting and worth publication, these points are necessary to improve the quality of the paper

1. make sure all abbreviation are defined first and not redefined again. 

2. in vivo and in vitro have to be italic.

3. The authors has to explore the role of dental implant as one of the treatment modalities. 

4. abstract need to be broaden further. 

5. sections 3.1 and 3.2 better to be presented as table or figure each to make it easier to the reader about these sections. 

6. The paper is not clear whether it is systematic review or narrative review? I believe the paper should be rearranged as narrative review without having sections as result and discussion. 

7. Further, the 4 points described in the figure 4 (dental level influence, hard/soft tissue influence …etc) should be presented as section and authors should justify why they think the proposed conceptual model is good to be used. 

BW, 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Review for the manuscript ID: clinpract-3101919 entitled “Anterior Hyperfunction Syndrome: Conceptual Model”

The topic is interesting and worth publication, these points are necessary to improve the quality of the paper

Comments 1: make sure all abbreviation are defined first and not redefined again. 

Response 1: We ensured that all abbreviations were defined upon their first occurrence and were not redefined throughout the manuscript.

 

Comments 2: in vivo and in vitro have to be italic.

Response 2: We revised the manuscript and italicized "in vivo" and "in vitro" throughout the text.

 

Comments 3: The authors has to explore the role of dental implant as one of the treatment modalities. 

Response 3: We have include a paragraph discussing the treatments and prosthetic management of AHS.

 

Comments 4: abstract need to be broaden further. 

Response 4: We broadened the abstract to provide a more comprehensive overview of the study, including key findings and their implications.

 

Comments 5:  sections 3.1 and 3.2 better to be presented as table or figure each to make it easier to the reader about these sections. 

Response 5: We have decided to present these sections as a table, as this format will allow for a clearer and more concise presentation of the risk factors involved.

 

Comments 6: The paper is not clear whether it is systematic review or narrative review? I believe the paper should be rearranged as narrative review without having sections as result and discussion. 

Response 6: We restructured the manuscript as a narrative review

 

Comments 7: Further, the 4 points described in the figure 4 (dental level influence, hard/soft tissue influence …etc) should be presented as section and authors should justify why they think the proposed conceptual model is good to be used. BW, 

Response 7: We incorporated the four points described in figure 4 as separate sections within the manuscript. Additionally, we provided a justification for why we believed the proposed conceptual model is effective and beneficial for understanding and treating Anterior Hyperfunction Syndrome.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review focused on anterior hyperfunction, the cause of combination syndrome,  and aimed to define a conceptual model to the factors that are involved in causuality. In conclusion, comprehensive and preventive approaches for the remaining teeth and the prostheses will be required to manage this complex condition.

 

It is a well-structured and organized document, as well as an interesting paper. This theme is not so often to see in the literature, and this justify the realization of a review

Either way, I may have some comments in the various sections.

Title: it should be important to define which kind of review is adressed

The article is not a systematic review. Please remove references to that feuture.

Clinical management is very important in these pathologies. Nevertheless they should be indicated all, even if no clinical figures are supporting them.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This review focused on anterior hyperfunction, the cause of combination syndrome, and aimed to define a conceptual model to the factors that are involved in causuality. In conclusion, comprehensive and preventive approaches for the remaining teeth and the prostheses will be required to manage this complex condition.

It is a well-structured and organized document, as well as an interesting paper. This theme is not so often to see in the literature, and this justify the realization of a review

Either way, I may have some comments in the various sections.

 

Comments 1: Title: it should be important to define which kind of review is addressed

Response 1: We have defined the type of review in the title to provide clarity for the readers.

 

Comments 2: The article is not a systematic review. Please remove references to that feuture.

Response 2: We have removed all references to the article being a systematic review.

 

Comments 3: Clinical management is very important in these pathologies. Nevertheless they should be indicated all, even if no clinical figures are supporting them.

Response 3: We have indicated the clinical management approaches.

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Anterior Hyperfunction Syndrome: Conceptual Model" provides a comprehensive review of Anterior Hyperfunction Syndrome (AHS in the field of dentistry. the review appears clear and comprehensive

 

Some minor revisions should be corrected: 

 

1. Refine the introduction and discussion sections to eliminate redundancy and enhance readability.

2. Include additional citations from the last five years to ensure the review reflects recent research developments.

3. Incorporate more detailed data or case studies to substantiate claims.

4. Detail the literature search strategy in a clear, step-by-step manner.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The paper titled "Anterior Hyperfunction Syndrome: Conceptual Model" provides a comprehensive review of Anterior Hyperfunction Syndrome (AHS in the field of dentistry. the review appears clear and comprehensive

 Some minor revisions should be corrected: 

 

Comments 1: Refine the introduction and discussion sections to eliminate redundancy and enhance readability.

Response 1: We have carefully reviewed the introduction and discussion sections of the manuscript and made the following revisions to eliminate redundancy and enhance readability

 

Comments 2: Include additional citations from the last five years to ensure the review reflects recent research developments.

Response 2: We added the table that reflects the recent research approaches.

 

Comments 3: Incorporate more detailed data or case studies to substantiate claims.

Response 3: We incorporated additional case studies and relevant data to provide a more comprehensive understanding and validation of our findings.

 

Comments 4: Detail the literature search strategy in a clear, step-by-step manner.

Response 4: We have provided a detailed description of the literature search strategy

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

NIL