Next Article in Journal
Foxn1 Control of Skin Function
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhanced Bactericidal Efficacy of NaOCl at pH 12 Followed by Acidified NaOCl at pH 6.5 on Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm
Previous Article in Journal
COVID-XNet: A Custom Deep Learning System to Diagnose and Locate COVID-19 in Chest X-ray Images
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Undersized Drilling on the Coronal Surface Roughness of Microthreaded Implants: An In Vitro Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 10
Issue 16
10.3390/app10165684
Review Report
applsci-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

Apical Debris Extrusion by Adaptive Root Canal Instrumentation in Oval Canals: Full-Sequence SAF System vs. the XP-Endo Shaper Plus Sequence

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(16), 5684; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10165684
by Ajinkya M. Pawar 1,*, Bhaggyashri A. Pawar 2, Anuj Bhardwaj 3, Alexander Maniangat Luke 4, Zvi Metzger 5 and Anda Kfir 5,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(16), 5684; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10165684
Submission received: 23 July 2020 / Revised: 10 August 2020 / Accepted: 13 August 2020 / Published: 16 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Predictable Restorative Dentistry)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting study on the apical extrusion of debris by two instrumentation systems. 

Both systems promise to prepare various root canal shapes due to the fact, that they do not work in a classical circular or reciprocating motion. This fact makes it interesting to compare one system with another in terms of extrusion of dentinal debris.

Regarding the study setup, the paper is well-organized. Especially the fact, that the extrusion after the different instrumentation stages were investigated, is a helpful and reasonable aspect.

However, regarding the results section, it would be more than appropriate to present a Boxplot diagram due to the fact that there was no additional table included showing the difference results (mean, SD, median, min, max). This is of certain importance for the reader and would improve this section tremendously.

The discussion is nicely performed and includes also the necessary aspect of the missing periodical counter pressure. However, from my point of view, this aspect is somwhat overrated. Regarding the fact, that periodical lesions can widely vary in size and volume, the extent of the counter pressure may differ accordingly. In order to compare both instruments in terms of AED, the setup seems appropriate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Your studymight be interesting, however the manuscript lacks of appealing. 

Indeed micrographs of the debris extrusion should be added (for example under the stereomicrope)

In addition, information on the materials and the shape of the instruments shoudl be a point of discussion adding support to Your results. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

thank You for complying to the suggestions. 

Manuscript is now more appealing and clear. 

Back to TopTop