Next Article in Journal
Employing Energy and Statistical Features for Automatic Diagnosis of Voice Disorders
Previous Article in Journal
Prognostic Nutritional Index, Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score, and Inflammatory Biomarkers as Predictors of Deep Vein Thrombosis, Acute Pulmonary Embolism, and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/diagnostics12112759
Review Report
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Morphological Diversity of Permanent Maxillary Lateral Incisors and Their Impact on Aesthetics and Function in Orthodontically Treated Patients

Diagnostics 2022, 12(11), 2759; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112759
by Anita Fekonja 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Ana Coelho
Reviewer 2:
Jian Wang
Diagnostics 2022, 12(11), 2759; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112759
Submission received: 11 October 2022 / Revised: 24 October 2022 / Accepted: 1 November 2022 / Published: 11 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

Please consider some suggestions:

 

Abstract: In the background section you only state the aim of the study. This section should be improved (use the word "aim" instead of "background" or add some real background information).

 

Sex and gender are different things.

From a biological point of view, it is sex that may influence dental anatomy and morphology, not gender.

Simply put, sex is a biological trait. Gender is a social construction.

As so I would use the word "sex" instead of "gender".

 

The study evaluates a sample of an orthodontic population, which as you correctly state it's not representative of the general population. In the discussion, a comparison is made with other studies - are the samples from these studies also made up of orthodontic patients? The similarities/differences between the studies is unclear and may be important for the readers to understand the discussion.

 

I would add the information that an orthodontic population was evaluated to the abstract, aim and conclusion so it would be clear.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I added attachment with all corections

I look forward to hearing from you

Sincerely, Anita Fekonja

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     The language should polished extensively, because a lot of grammar mistakes and typos can be found throughout the manuscript. 

2.     How did the 698 subjects be selected? Why there were 294 subjects be excluded? Almost half of the subjects were excluded! In what kind of population did the subjects be selected? Did the selection be randomized? 

3.     Since the population of this study is only from orthodontic patients, the title of this manuscript should be more specific, and the population should be noted in the title. 

4.     The clinical significance should be concluded more clearly. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I added attachment with all corrections

I look forward to hearing from you

Sncerely, Anita Fekonja

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop