Morphological Characterization of Deciduous Enamel and Dentin in Patients Affected by Osteogenesis Imperfecta

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper shows the structural and ultrastructural alterations of enamel and dentin collagen network in deciduous teeth of children affected by ostegenesis imperfect.
This is an interesting study. However, I would like to make some points regarding the manuscript. The article needs to be revised.

Comments in detail:

First, there are some typos, such as “ultrastructual”. Please revise them very carefully.

Second, this not article but a case series. There are no quantitative data and statistical analyses.

 

INTRODUCTION

What are uncertain things in this filed? What did the authors add in this study? What is the different to the previous study (Ref #23)? These are not clear. Please clarify them in the text to emphasize the value of this study.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS
1) Please add the validity, reliability and reproducibility of the observation.

2) Was the blinding used?

3) Please add the measurement to show quantitative data.

4) Pease add the statistical analyses.

 

RESULTS

1) Please add the quantitative results.

 

DISCUSSION SECTION
1) Please change the discussion following the new results.

Author Response

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This was a lab study, and I am not sure whether 10 authors are warranted for this type of a study and manuscript. The focus of this study was to compare dental structures (enamel and dentin) between children with OI and children without OI. Suddenly, the focus changed to teeth affected with DGI. Please re-write the manuscript based on the purpose. This requires changes to be made in introduction and discussion. 

Please indicate the need for this study as previous works report on this topic. 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: applsci-962509

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Morphological characterization of deciduous enamel and dentin in patients affected by Osteogenesis Imperfecta

 

Reviewers’ comments:

 

 

Reviewer 2

 

This was a lab study, and I am not sure whether 10 authors are warranted for this type of a study and manuscript. The focus of this study was to compare dental structures (enamel and dentin) between children with OI and children without OI. Suddenly, the focus changed to teeth affected with DGI. Please re-write the manuscript based on the purpose. This requires changes to be made in introduction and discussion. 

 

Authors’ response: We would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. The study was performed in collaboration between the three Universities: University of Rome, University of Bologna and University of Trieste. Each of the authors contributed to teeth collection and/or specimen preparation and/or analysis and interpretation of the data, as well as in writing and/or critically revising the manuscript.

We agree that the terminology we used might be confusing, that is why we wrote a paragraph in Introduction about proper nomenclature of teeth associated with OI. The suggested changes have been made throughout the manuscript and are now highlighted in yellow.

 

Please indicate the need for this study as previous works report on this topic. 

 

Authors’ response: Thank you for this comment. Even though previous work on this topic exists in the literature, the findings of some authors about slightly irregular enamel made us investigate further into this direction. Also, we found it important to replicate the available data and reaffirm the findings. This part has been added in the Introduction section. Furthermore, we established firmly, at an ultrastructural level, that even enamel in patients affected by OI is pathologically altered. We also observed areas of necrosis in dentinal tubules, which, to the best of our knowledge, have not been previously reported. Future research should focus on elucidating these findings and also define quantitatively and qualitatively the collagenic and non-collagenic proteins in teeth of OI patients, as stated in the conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

• Articles: Original research manuscripts. The journal considers all original research manuscripts provided that the work reports scientifically sound experiments and provides a substantial amount of new information. Authors should not unnecessarily divide their work into several related manuscripts, although Short Communications of preliminary, but significant, results will be considered. Quality and impact of the study will be considered during peer review.

The journal states them. There are no the quantitative results in this study. It is not article and not provide a substantial amount of new information. Thus, it is very difficult to accept the current form.

I'm so sorry.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

If the 10 authors all meet the criteria to be authors, then you can keep them. If an author helped in collecting teeth...etc. then they can be better mentioned in Acknowledgements. 

The manuscript improved by revisions provided. However, my main concern remains: Do children with OI from whom teeth were taken have dentinogenesis imperfecta as well. If the authors know, please let the readers know how many children diagnosed with both OI and DI, how many diagnosed with OI alone, and for how many children this information is unknown. This is important because children with OI alone will have dentin and enamel affected even if they were diagnosed DI-free, based on this research results. 

Please, in Introduction, clarify the relation between OI and DI or lack thereof (by providing a table for classification?). 

  

 

 

 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf