Salivary Redox Biomarkers in the Course of Caries and Periodontal Disease
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review presents a high amount of information about oxidation processes associated to caries and periodontitis and how the assessment of redox processes and salivary related biomarkers can help to understand and diagnose those diseases. The authors made a deep review, and presented all the points with high detail, making all the concepts referred understandable by the reader.
However, from my point of view, it is somehow confusing the type of review made: systematic or descriptive?
Because of this, one of my main concerns is about the structure of the manuscript. In point 5, authors present the methodology used for the systematic search and analysis of bibliography. Moreover, in the last sub-point of this point they present results about their search. By reading this I think it would make more sense to opt by a systematic review article. But to achieve this, some adjustments need to be done in the text and structure.
One of the adjustments is to reduce the size and detail of chapters 2, 3 and 4. Although I agree this is interesting information, with utility to better understand results of the bibliographic search, it is extensive and distract the reader from the essential of the review that is to present the already proposed salivary redox biomarkers associated with caries and periodontal disease.
Another adjustment is to consider sub-point 5.4. (results) as a new autonomous section. In this new section, of results, besides what the authors presented about the number of articles considered for the review, it would be important to include the part that describes the biomarkers associated with caries (also detailed in table 1) and with periodontitis (also detailed in table 2). All this are the resultant information from the review process presented in material and methods. Moreover, the text section dedicated to caries and the one dedicated to periodontitis are very long and can be shortened.
Concerning particular points:
Abstract
Line 12 – “proteolysis of organic substances”, I suggest to delete “of organic substances”, since proteolysis is only possible for proteins (and peptides), so it is redundant to say “of organic substances”.
Lines 21 – 27 – This needs to be re-written, since it is not very clear if the authors are referring to the aim of the review they are presenting in this manuscript or to the reviews that were made before.
Saliva
Line 41 – “solid elements”, I suggest to delete the word “solid”
Point 3 – Salivary stress biomarkers – this title is not the ideal, since in this section there is no presentation of biomarkers but only oxidative stress
Material and methods
Line 270 – This last point must be separated from the others, since the previous ones are inclusion factors and this one is an exclusion factor.
Lines 288-290 – delete this paragraph – If authors agree to change the manuscript structure according the suggestions that I previously made, this part will naturally disappear.
Lines 310-313 – Reference? It is also 94?
Table 1 – concerning study 22, please remove “group A, B, C and D”. It is strance to have group A as the last one and there is no need to have the letters attributed to each group, since is described what represents each of them.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for a very helpful review of our paper. We tried to correct it thoroughly, but if our correction are not good enough, we would be very grateful for an indication which of the fragments of the text are difficult to follow, or controversial, with appropriate comments and suggestions. All changes are marked in the red color.
This review presents a high amount of information about oxidation processes associated to caries and periodontitis and how the assessment of redox processes and salivary related biomarkers can help to understand and diagnose those diseases. The authors made a deep review, and presented all the points with high detail, making all the concepts referred understandable by the reader.
However, from my point of view, it is somehow confusing the type of review made: systematic or descriptive? The review is a systematic review of the literature.
Because of this, one of my main concerns is about the structure of the manuscript. In point 5, authors present the methodology used for the systematic search and analysis of bibliography. Moreover, in the last sub-point of this point they present results about their search. By reading this I think it would make more sense to opt by a systematic review article. But to achieve this, some adjustments need to be done in the text and structure.
One of the adjustments is to reduce the size and detail of chapters 2, 3 and 4. Although I agree this is interesting information, with utility to better understand results of the bibliographic search, it is extensive and distract the reader from the essential of the review that is to present the already proposed salivary redox biomarkers associated with caries and periodontal disease. We shortened the chapter 2-4, according to the Reviewer suggestions.
Another adjustment is to consider sub-point 5.4. (results) as a new autonomous section. In this new section, of results, besides what the authors presented about the number of articles considered for the review, it would be important to include the part that describes the biomarkers associated with caries (also detailed in table 1) and with periodontitis (also detailed in table 2). All this are the resultant information from the review process presented in material and methods. Moreover, the text section dedicated to caries and the one dedicated to periodontitis are very long and can be shortened. We changed subsection 5.4 into chapter 6, and we also described biomarkers assessed in caries and periodontal disease
Concerning particular points:
Abstract
Line 12 – “proteolysis of organic substances”, I suggest to delete “of organic substances”, since proteolysis is only possible for proteins (and peptides), so it is redundant to say “of organic substances”. it was deleted
Lines 21 – 27 – This needs to be re-written, since it is not very clear if the authors are referring to the aim of the review they are presenting in this manuscript or to the reviews that were made before. these sentences were changed
Saliva
Line 41 – “solid elements”, I suggest to delete the word “solid” it was deleted
Point 3 – Salivary stress biomarkers – this title is not the ideal, since in this section there is no presentation of biomarkers but only oxidative stress we change the title into oxidative stress biomarkers
Material and methods
Line 270 – This last point must be separated from the others, since the previous ones are inclusion factors and this one is an exclusion factor. the last point was separated.
Lines 288-290 – delete this paragraph – If authors agree to change the manuscript structure according the suggestions that I previously made, this part will naturally disappear. This sentences were deleted.
Lines 310-313 – Reference? It is also 94? Yes, it is the same reference.
Table 1 – concerning study 22, please remove “group A, B, C and D”. It is strance to have group A as the last one and there is no need to have the letters attributed to each group, since is described what represents each of them. It was delated, we changed into group 1,2,3,4-
The revised manuscript is included in the appendix
Thanking in advance
Anna Skutnik-Radziszewska, DD
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review is relevant in this area. In my opinion should be summarized the point from 1 to 4. In addition, is required an integral analysis of the power of each biomarker (e.g. MDA, PAOP, etc) in any specific pathology (caries or periodontitis).
Minor English correction is needed e.g. “melatonin” in place of “melatonina”
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for a very helpful review of our paper. We tried to correct it thoroughly, but if our correction are not good enough, we would be very grateful for an indication which of the fragments of the text are difficult to follow, or controversial, with appropriate comments and suggestions. All changes are marked in the red color.
The review is relevant in this area. In my opinion should be summarized the point from 1 to 4. In addition, is required an integral analysis of the power of each biomarker (e.g. MDA, PAOP, etc) in any specific pathology (caries or periodontitis). We shortened the point 1-4 according to the Reviewer suggestions. It seems to us that the strength of given markers in a specific pathology should be calculated by the authors of the discussed scientific publications. However, it was not given in the publications discussed.
Minor English correction is needed e.g. “melatonin” in place of “melatonina” The article was checked by English native speaker.
The revised manuscript is included in the appendix
Thanking in advance
Anna Skutnik-Radziszewska, DD
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The review article is extremely long and the work would benefit from splitting into two separate reviews - on caries and periodontal disease to be more concise.
The study should be accompanied by a flow chart to show the methodology and criteria of selection. Why since 2010?
Theoretical background in the introduction is too long - suitable for book chapter not for article review.
The pathogenetical mechanisms shoud be illustrated in graphs or pictures.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for a very helpful review of our paper. We tried to correct it thoroughly, but if our correction are not good enough, we would be very grateful for an indication which of the fragments of the text are difficult to follow, or controversial, with appropriate comments and suggestions. All changes are marked in the red color.
The review article is extremely long and the work would benefit from splitting into two separate reviews - on caries and periodontal disease to be more concise. We agree that this article is extensive, but we still limited ourselves to the most common oral diseases, excluding pre-cancerous conditions and neoplasms.
The study should be accompanied by a flow chart to show the methodology and criteria of selection. Why since 2010? the number of articles in the last 10 years is very large. Therefore, we have limited ourselves to the latest reports on redox biomarkers in caries and periodontitis. The flow charts were added (Figure 5-6).
Theoretical background in the introduction is too long - suitable for book chapter not for article review. We shortened the introduction according to the Reviewer suggestions.
The pathogenetical mechanisms shoud be illustrated in graphs or pictures. We have added figures describing the pathogenesis of OS (Figure 1-4).
The revised manuscript is included in the appendix
Thanking in advance
Anna Skutnik-Radziszewska, DD
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors were able to correct most of the points I suggested. Concerning my suggestions about the structure of the manuscript, the authors opted by keep it with the initial structure. Since the most important is the scientific relevance and validity of the content, I accept the manuscript for publication in this form. The type of information presented is of interest. A very good review is presented, which can be useful for other researchers and professionals, and I consider this more important in the decision of acceptance than the questions related with the structure points I presented before.
As such, I consider the manuscript acceptable for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have followed the reviewers´suggestions and improved the manuscript. I still think that two separate papers would be more feasible for readers.
