Comparative Analysis of the Smear Layer Removal Capability between EndoVac and Endoactivator Endodontic Irrigation Systems at the Root Canal System and Isthmus: A Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis
, Salvatore Sauro 3,4 and Vicente Faus-Matoses 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper reports results of comparison among 3 different treatments of root canal system. In particular, the Smear Layer Removal Capability is evaluated through the use of A Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis. The paper is well written and experiments well designed and conduced.
Nevertheless, some corrections are needed.
Introduction
Line 54: do you mean “there are” instead of “They are”
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Line 103: The sentence “The RCS randomly assigned to EV and EA study groups and Positive control group were performed using the ProTaper Gold endodontic rotary system…” is not clear. Please reword.
Line 108: “..with a of 0.3 mm diameter…” is incorrect. Please remove “of”.
Figure 1: you mentioned “A) negative control group (B) negative control group”. Is this correct? Did you mean “positive control group” for one of these?
Line 151: How did you identified the smear layer on micro-CT scans?
DISCUSSION
You can consider these papers in your discussion:
“Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation Efficacy in the Vapor Lock Removal: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” doi: 10.1155/2019/6765349
“ Inspection of the Microbiota in Endodontic Lesions.” doi: 10.3390/dj7020047
Line 299: “..has demonstrated to improved..” correct in “has demonstrated to improve…”
CONCLUSIONS
Line 308: “The Endoactivator endodontic irrigation system achieves a higher endodontic smear layer removal in the coronal and middle root thirds of the RCS and the isthmus from mesial roots of first lower molar teeth; “ you should state “compared to….”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
I’m pleased to resubmit the manuscript of the work entitled, “Comparative Analysis of the Smear Layer Removal Capability between EndoVac and Endoactivator Endodontic Irrigation Systems at the Root Canal System and Isthmus: A Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis”.
Reviewer 1: Moderate English changes required.
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have sent the manuscript to the traduction service of MDPI.
Reviewer 1: Introduction: Line 54: do you mean “there are” instead of “They are”
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have changed the word.
Reviewer 1: Material and methods: Line 103: The sentence “The RCS randomly assigned to EV and EA study groups and Positive control group were performed using the ProTaper Gold endodontic rotary system…” is not clear. Please reword.
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have clarified the sentence.
Reviewer 1: Material and methods: Line 108: “..with a of 0.3 mm diameter…” is incorrect. Please remove “of”.
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have removed “of”.
Reviewer 1: Material and methods: Figure 1: you mentioned “A) negative control group (B) negative control group”. Is this correct? Did you mean “positive control group” for one of these?
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have changed the word.
Reviewer 1: Material and methods: Line 151: How did you identified the smear layer on micro-CT scans?
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have explained in detail the measurement procedure.
Reviewer 1: Discussion: You can consider these papers in your discussion:
“Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation Efficacy in the Vapor Lock Removal: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” doi: 10.1155/2019/6765349
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have added the reference suggested.
Reviewer 1: Discussion: You can consider these papers in your discussion: “ Inspection of the Microbiota in Endodontic Lesions.” doi: 10.3390/dj7020047
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have added the reference suggested.
Reviewer 1: Discussion: Line 299: “..has demonstrated to improved..” correct in “has demonstrated to improve…”
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have corrected the word.
Reviewer 1: Conclusions: Line 308: “The Endoactivator endodontic irrigation system achieves a higher endodontic smear layer removal in the coronal and middle root thirds of the RCS and the isthmus from mesial roots of first lower molar teeth; “ you should state “compared to….”
Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have clarified the sentence.
We take this opportunity to thank the recommendations and suggestions made by the reviewer to improve the document.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear corresponding author,
Comparative Analysis of the Smear Layer Removal 2 Capability between EndoVac and Endoactivator Endodontic Irrigation Systems at the Root Canal System and Isthmus: A Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis
Removing the smear layer after the endodontic instrumentation is what every dental practitioner wants. This study deals with the efficacy of various systems in the coronal, middle and apical root thirds and the isthmus. Very interesting in clinical aspect, but too large variation of data is one drawback of this study. However, the difference they found is meaningful and applicable to our practices and I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript in the present form. Thank you for submitting your precious article to Applied Sciences. Stay well and keep safe in this hard season of COVID-19.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2:
I’m pleased to resubmit the manuscript of the work entitled, “Comparative Analysis of the Smear Layer Removal Capability between EndoVac and Endoactivator Endodontic Irrigation Systems at the Root Canal System and Isthmus: A Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis”.
Reviewer 2: Moderate English changes required
Response: In order to adapt to the reviewer 2 comments, we have sent the manuscript to the traduction service of MDPI.
Reviewer 2: Removing the smear layer after the endodontic instrumentation is what every dental practitioner wants. This study deals with the efficacy of various systems in the coronal, middle and apical root thirds and the isthmus. Very interesting in clinical aspect, but too large variation of data is one drawback of this study. However, the difference they found is meaningful and applicable to our practices and I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript in the present form. Thank you for submitting your precious article to Applied Sciences. Stay well and keep safe in this hard season of COVID-19.
Response: We take this opportunity to thank the comments made by the reviewer 2.
We take this opportunity to thank the recommendations and suggestions made by the reviewer to improve the document.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors:
This was indeed a very interesting article and research paper and I comment you. I would however like to suggest that there be more description in the introduction and discussion on why removal of the smear layer is desirable. It it important for the final restoration, for the final canal fill? Also the fact that the teeth were decoronated 1-3 mm from the CEJ make is more of a laboratory setting and this may not be representative of real life clinical situations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3:
I’m pleased to resubmit the manuscript of the work entitled, “Comparative Analysis of the Smear Layer Removal Capability between EndoVac and Endoactivator Endodontic Irrigation Systems at the Root Canal System and Isthmus: A Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis”.
Reviewer 3: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response: In order to adapt to the reviewer 3 comments, we have sent the manuscript to the traduction service of MDPI.
Reviewer 3: This was indeed a very interesting article and research paper and I comment you. I would however like to suggest that there be more description in the introduction and discussion on why removal of the smear layer is desirable. It it important for the final restoration, for the final canal fill? Also the fact that the teeth were decoronated 1-3 mm from the CEJ make is more of a laboratory setting and this may not be representative of real life clinical situations.
Response: In order to adapt to the reviewer 3 comments, we clarified that the decoration of the samples was carried out to prevent that the design of the access cavities and / or the anatomy of the pulp chamber could influence the action of the irrigation systems analyzed in the present study. In this way, all samples were standardized. In addition, in order to adapt to the reviewer 3 comments, we have highlighted the sentences that describe the importance of the smear layer removal.
We take this opportunity to thank the recommendations and suggestions made by the reviewer to improve the document.
Yours sincerely
