Intermolar Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis—A Preliminary Report

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor and authors, 

I would like to thank for the opportunity of reviewing your paper. The topic of severe mandibular hypoplasia is surely interesting for the orthodontic community. 

My major concern are: 

• invasivity of the treatment and the surgical procedure
• risk of this procedure needs to be more emphasized 
• risk of root damaging 
• why should I opt for this treatment in a growing patient instead of an Herbs or BSSO at the end of growth
• How do you manage remaining growth at the end of the treatment
• If the procedure do not succeed are there problems for future BSSO

Highlight that the procedure is "experimental" and various aspects need to be study. It would be great a comparison in the outcome with this technique VS traditional Herbst /twin block ecc...

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Brief Summery

It was a pleasure to conduct the review of the work entitled“Intermolar Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis – IMDO”, in which the Authors conducted a case series study. Briefly, 20 patients with dental class 2 underwent an IMDO and a dental class I was achieved.

Nevertheless, I suggest rejecting this article because many points are unclear, and the study shows many methodological weaknesses.

 

Below, you can find some major considerations about the paper.

The article title is not appropriate and not indicative of the material which is contained in the manuscript. Moreover, should be contained the design of the study: a retrospective case series study

M&M section is the most weakness part of the study. The main outcome was not specified. Also, the follow-up period was not specified.

It’s unclear how the measurement was conducted, and in what time sequency.

Furthermore, the authors should analyze other parameters (i.e.dental arch expansion/relapse, mandible length to better elucidate the effects of IMDO).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, the study is well described and cases well documented. 

please check the title if abbreviation are accepted, as well references that seems not to be in accordance to the guidelines. Considering the relative novelty of the tecnique and the poor literature, your work is surely a perspective case series about a tecnique that could be further diffuse in the future; but, at the present, it is important to consider the complications related to such treatments, as you reported too.

I suggest to modify the paper as an experimental paper, highliting the limits of the report in all sections and title too (e.g. preliminary report on ....), also better emphasising the complications themself. 

I sustain that the Editor in Chief should define the acceptability as it is.

Thank you for your paper  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

 Overall the paper seems improved and, in my opinion, can not be improved any more. Some methodological weakness makes it not suitable for publication (i.e. the retrospective nature, the lack of a control sample, the lack of sample size calculation, the lack of a ethical committee approval), since the paper doesn’t reach the quality standards of the paper. Nevertheless, it can be sent to other MDPI journals as https://www.mdpi.com/journal/reports.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for changes.