A Concise Review of Silver Diamine Fluoride on Oral Biofilm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

<General>

 The review entitled “A concise review of silver diamine fluoride on oral biofilm” has the aim to provide the best evidence on SDF’s antimicrobial effect presented in 21 selected papers to obtain a definitive answer to a research question involving antibacterial function. The manuscript contains the new results. However, minor revisions are required to improve the paper.

 

My minor comments are as follows.

1) Page 4, Table 1

Please correct the unnatural space in the “inhibition zone” of Wu et al, 2019 in Table 1.

 

2) Page 3, Line 120-121

A total of 15 studies reporting the antibacterial effects of SDF on bacteria are summa-120 rized in Table 1.

>Silver diamine fluoride is attracting attention as a preventive method for root caries, but was there a difference in the effect when the sample species were dentin and enamel?

 

3) Page5, Line225-229

Also, the same paper reported an alteration of the species of the bacteria both before and after SDF treatment. Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sobrinus increased significantly two and 12 weeks after SDF treatment in plaque within active caries.

 

Table 2, Mei et al, 2020

Active caries: reduced diversity 12 weeks after SDF;S. mutans, Lactobacillus sp. increased.

 

> Does SDF treatment of Active caries show no growth-suppressing effect on Streptococcus mutans?

 

4) Page7, Line307-309

After the results of the studies were analyzed, it was found that the possible mode of action of SDF can be related to its antibacterial properties on cariogenic bacteria rather than a change in the diversity of the biofilm.

＞Is it correct to consider that the mechanism of action of SDF on oral biofilms is mainly antibacterial by silver and enzyme inhibition by fluoride is a secondary factor?

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the effort invested in reviewing our manuscript and suggesting some points in order to improve it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have reported summarizing the studies about the availability of SDF treatments for oral biofilms in vitro and in vivo. This topic is interesting for many researchers and I consider that this report gives useful information to them. I recommend the two points are  revised.

[1] Current abstract section, the following things are unclear: 1) the concept of this study (why the authors have reviewed oral biofilm researches and the treatment by SDF) and 2) the effect(s) of SDF treatments on laboratory and clinical caries. you should revise this section.

[2] Throughout this manuscript, bacterial names should be expressed in Italic.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the effort invested in reviewing our manuscript and suggesting some points in order to improve it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf