Periodontal Decontamination Induced by Light and Not by Heat: Comparison between Oxygen High Level Laser Therapy (OHLLT) and LANAP

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary

In this manuscript, Caccianiga et al. investigated the effects of Oxygen high level laser therapy (OHLLT) in removing all bacterial deposits on root or implant surface by mean of mechanical instrumentation and laser irradiation, in comparison with laser-assisted new attachment procedure (LANAP) and with non surgical debridement of periodontal pockets, using Real Time PCR analysis. They recruited thirty patients aged between 18 and 65 (18 men and 12 women). They concluded that it appears evident that both the protocols with the Sioxyl system (OHLLT?) and the LANAP protocol are efficient in the non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease.

 

Major comment

1.The authors concluded that it appears evident that both the protocols with the Sioxyl system (OHLLT?) and the LANAP protocol are efficient in the non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease. However, they demonstrated only the microbiological profiles through Real-Time PCR.  Therefore, they must present data other than microbiological results at each time point (T1; before the application of the protocols, T2; 1 week after the end of the treatments and T3; 9 months after the end of the treatments), such as plaque index (IP), depth of the periodontal pocket on probing, clinical attack level (CAL), gingival recessions (REC), bleeding on probing (BOP) and so on.  In addition, they must demonstrate that patients were successfully matched in all groups.

2.The proposed presentation does not respect the elementary rules of a scientific writing.　They must reformat and rewrite text (including figure legends) and must redraw figures.

Minor comments

1.  “OMS” should be spelled out because this abbreviation appears first here in the text.  (line 51)

2.  “ iof the temperature” may be “of the temperature.” (line 89)

Author Response

We apologize for our poor first version of manuscript. In this revisited article we tried to improve the english language (but, if you will accept the article, we will send soon to a proof reader office). We needed to apply all the suggestions gave from the Reviewers, in all chapters (introduction, matherials and methods, results, discussion and conclusion. We erased the poor figures and we improved with new tables clinical results.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper by Caccianiga et al. "Periodontal decontamination induced by light and not by heat: comparison between Oxygen High Level Laser Therapy (OHLLT) and LANAP" the authors compared different methods for removal of bacterial deposits on root or implant surface. Although this topic is indeed interesting the paper has serious flaws in the introductory section, description of material and methods, presentation of results and the quality of discussion:

1. Introduction is too long and should be rewritten concisely
2. What is Figure 1 showing? It looks like the big blue rectangle and is completely inappropriate for publication
3. The whole material and methods sections is written in the form of "numbering". It should be rewritten in the form of text. It is more appropriate to present some data in the form of tables 
4. Figures 2, 3, 9, 10 looks like a power point presentation slides (there is even the symbol of the university in the upper left corner???). It looks completely inappropriate for publications
5. I suggest combining Figure 4-8 in one composite figure
6. Results section is poor and short (a total of 6 and a half text lines), presentation of data (Figures 11-13) is completely inappropriate. Figures look like power point presentation slides. Graphs are very small and it is impossible to read them. Moreover, parts of the figures (controllo, 9 mesi) are written in Italian (controllo, 9 mesi)!!??.
7. Discussion section is inappropriately written: it is actually presenting the results of the present study (which should be obviously done in the Results section) with zero (0) references to other studies.

 

Author Response

We apologize for our poor first version of manuscript. In this revisited article we tried to improve the english language (but, if you will accept the article, we will send soon to a proof reader office). We needed to apply all the suggestions gave from the Reviewers, in all chapters (introduction, matherials and methods, results, discussion and conclusion. We erased the poor figures and we improved with new tables clinical results.

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract:
Line 20: There is a lack of information about the PCR real time performed. Please describe better the methodology and the analyzed genes.
Introduction:
In general, I consider this section quite extense and could be target of an extensive and careful syntesis.
Line 45: The name of bacterias should be corrected. Specific restrictive, such as “gengivalis” is in lower letter. Ex: “Porphyromonas gingivalis”.
Lines 50 to 55: There are some subjectiveness in these sentences, which could be considered for Discussion. Please, base your affirmations in bibliographic references.
Lines 73 to 77: Bibliographic references are missing.
Line 89: “iof” ?
Line 160: Correct the reference and style. In some parts, the authors use Numbers and here Authors too “(Caccianiga G, Urso E, Monguzzi R, Gallo K, Rey G)”.
Line 195: The Figure 1 could be improved.
Materials and Methods:
Line 271: Figure 2 is redundant and can be erased
Line 291: Figure 3 is redundant and can be erased
Line 301: Figures 4-5-6-7-8 could be combined in a single plate (in just one figure) to better observation.
Line 366: Figure 9 is redundant and can be erased
Line 368: Figure 10 is redundant and can be erased
Results:
Graphics should be formatted. The most relevant obtained results should be described in text in this section.
Discussion:
There is a huge lack of discussion of the obtained results with other published works. Limitations are not addressed. Future applications of the studied approach are not discussed as well.

Author Response

We apologize for our poor first version of manuscript. In this revisited article we tried to improve the english language (but, if you will accept the article, we will send soon to a proof reader office). We needed to apply all the suggestions gave from the Reviewers, in all chapters (introduction, matherials and methods, results, discussion and conclusion. We erased the poor figures and we improved with new tables clinical results.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Minor comments

1. The authors should rewrite their Introduction because it is too long.

2. “PCR Real Time” may be “ Real Time PCR” (line 482). Likewise, there are  typographical errors throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we took your suggestions and uploaded a new version of the manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of the manuscript has been significantly improved compared to the original version. However, there are still many shortages including: 

• Introduction should be rewritten concisely and related to the aim of this paper; Currently it sounds like a part of the stand-alone review paper. Avoid pointless sentences like "An interesting study on the bactericidal efficacy of the laser was published in 2008"
• Experimental design (sections 2.4.-2.7) should be rewritten to reduce the number of paragraphs. Paragraphs in which the name of the paragraph is the only sentence in the paragraph should be avoided (line 274)
• Quality of figures 1-4 should be improved; consider grouping figures 1-4 into one composite figure
• Presentation of data is inappropriate; results from tables 2-4 should be summarized, presented in graphs and statistically analysed. Put Table 2-4 as a supplementary data. 
• Conduct statistical analysis of the results

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we took your suggestions and uploaded a new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Line 122: change "GROUP" to "Group".
Line 146: write "Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomi-tans" in italic and errase the ifem. The same to other species scientific names.
Line 191: Write "A" in bold.
Line 194: Joules should be written in capittal letter - "mJ".
Line 201: Write "®" in superscript.
Line 202: Write "W" instead of "Watt".
Line 207: Figures 1 to 4 should be a single Figure "1" divided in A, B, C and images. The numering/lettering in the images could be improved, writting closer to the corner of the image.
Line 232: Write the sentence without bold.
Line 242: The axes of Figure 5 should have legends.
Line 256: The axes of Figure 6 should have legends.
Line 263: The axes of Figure 7 should have legends.
Line 286: Table 1 - the meaning of the parameter should be written without bold as in the Table 2.
Line 398: References list should be carefuly revised: ISSN are scientific journals are not necessary, name of journals should not be in capittal letters (JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL REGULATORS & HOMEOSTATIC AGENTS), etc

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

All required changes have been implemented in the manuscript which has been dramatically improved compared to the first and second version.