Changes in the Mandible Following Rapid Maxillary Expansion in Children with Class II Malocclusion: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your systematic review on an interesting topic. This review is very well conducted. Unfortunately the conclusions are inconsistent because of the weak of the research in orthodontics. We hope in future to improve studies. In my opinion your paper is ready to be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank You both for Your time and for Your favourable review of our manuscript. 

Thank You also for making a very good point about the conclusions – we have corrected this passage by using the phrase “it should be suspected”, and also by emphasising that our conclusions are poorly supported in scientific terms and there is a need for further research in this area.

We also paid attention to possible translation errors by sending the manuscript back to translation. 

 

Thank You again for Your hard work and all remarks. We truly believe that it will help to improve our article.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Małgorzata Kotarska and colleagues.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for submitting your systematic review.

 

The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether rapid maxillary 6 expansion (RME) allows favorable changes in the mandible during the treatment of Class II maloc- 7 clusion before the growth spurt.

 

I congratulate the authors for this very relevant research, which will add to the dental field. 

 

It appears well structured, correctly carried out and written without logical or factual errors

 

 

The topic is in line with the journal aim.

 

Introduction is too short please please consider lengthening it

 

-Results are reported clearly and adequately supported by Tables. 

 

- A table regarding the search strategies adopted for this review should be added as supplementary materials

 

- PICO should be summarized in a Table

 

-I suggest to the Authors to improve their reference list citing the following article relative to topic of the present review:

https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125748

 

https://doi.org/10.3390/children8010033

 

 

The Conclusions are correctly stated and supported by the findings obtained from the present study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank You for Your time and Your valuable feedback.

 

Following the advice and working with my colleagues, we have made the introduction longer; also thank You for suggesting articles and thus improving our manuscript . 

 

Please find enclosed PICO as well as search strategy in the form of a table (attached).

 

Thank You again for Your hard work and all remarks. We truly believe that it will help to improve our article.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

Małgorzata Kotarska and colleagues.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors first of all congratulation on your paper. I would loke to highlight some points in order to clarify somethings:

- Why your data base search only chose 3 day base? Do you think there would be more articles in other databases? 
- When you chose your articles you think the number of participants is high enough for a systematic review? When you have an article with 9 patients you think is a good choice? I am sorry but I doubt it.

- If your PICO question results give you this results you should think if this is a good systematic review. 
I think you should improve your methodology.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank You for taking the time to read our manuscript as well as Your valuable suggestions. 

I hope that by responding on behalf of my colleagues I will dispel Your doubts and satisfactorily address Your comments.

 

In view of the good point made about the number of databases searched, I would like to point to the following articles – there the number of databases is also lower. In addition, after selecting a random database not included in our review and making a search in it, we did not find any relevant articles. I very much hope that I have thus calmed the doubts in this area.

 

4 databases: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.11.023

3 databases: 10.1111/ocr.12240

 

 

 

The comment about number is very important, thank You for pointing this out. The analysis of Risk of Bias include analysis of the statistic. It also includes the calculation of the sample size or/and the power test analysis. We believe that it resolve the problem of the sample size in the analyzed paper.

 

We are not sure if we understood Your remark correctly - we added PICO checklist also according to remarks of other Reviewer. We hope that it will dispel Your doubts in this regard.

 

Thank You again for Your hard work and all remarks. We truly believe that it will help to improve our article.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Małgorzata Kotarska and colleagues.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the reviewer's concerns

Reviewer 3 Report

I can see all the points regarded to the authors have been adressed. 

Congratulations