Dynamic Navigation System for Immediate Implant Placement in the Maxillary Aesthetic Region
and Gaetano Marenzi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: applsci-1725196
Title: Dynamic navigation system for immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic region
1.What is the main question addressed by the research?
To assess clinical and radiographical performance and accuracy of the surgical workflow during maxillary immediate implant placement assisted by implant planning software and surgical navigation system.
2.Is it relevant and interesting?
The article is relevant and interesting.
3.How original is the topic?
The topic is current.
4.What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The authors have collected and analyzed original data.
5.Is the paper well written?
Yes, the article is well written.
6.Is the text clear and easy to read?
Yes, but minor English editing is required.
7.Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
Yes, the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented but further studies are needed.
8.Do they address the main question posed?
Yes, the Authors addressed the main question posed.
Other comments:
- English language: Minor spell check required
- Summary of abbreviations required.
- Introduction: This section needs few improvements. For example, Authors may include a brief sentence at the beginning of this section regarding innovations in implant dentistry based on the following reference: <<Innovative materials and technologies to improve aesthetics and functionality, reducing at the same time morbidity, biological, and surgical times are an intense research topic in implant dentistry [https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12010108]>>.
Furthermore, Authors may include a brief sentence on osseointegration and factors that can affect it based on the following reference: <<Both macroscopic and microscopic characteristics of dental implants could influence osseointegration and the success of implant-prosthetic procedures [https://doi.org/10.23812/20-96-L-53]>>.
- Materials and methods: This section has been properly prepared.
- Results: This section has been properly prepared.
- Discussion: What is the main theme that emerges from the authors' analysis?Is the study design a limitation? Please improve.
- Conclusion: This section has been properly prepared.
After making the indicated changes, the article may be suitable for publication after Editorial evaluation.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract describes the study well.
Keywords are well-chosen and reflect the study well.
Introduction: introduces the reader to the topic of the article very well. It presents theoretical information about the topic well.
The methodology of the study is well described. Please add bioethics approval no. You write that the patients were 18 years old, which is invalid. Write that they were at least 18 years old.
The results are presented understandably.
The discussion discusses the results well and relates them to current literature.
The conclusions are consistent with the purpose of the study.
What are the limitations of the study? What are the further perspectives of this study?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a proof-of-concept study that aims to evaluate the clinical and radiographical performance and accuracy of the surgical workflow during maxillary immediate implant placement assisted by DTX studio Implant software planning and X-Guide Navigation. In this study, 12 patients were implanted in the maxillary aesthetic region. The accuracy was measured by calculating the deviation between the real implant position obtained from the postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan and the planned implant position.
This is an interesting technique, that can have certain advantages, however, the authors should address several issues before publication.
Please see the enclosed PDF for further details.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I would like to congratulate you on your interesting research and results. I have a few comments that may help to improve the quality of the article.
- Line 54: all acronyms should be clarified, names of medical specialties should not start with a capital letter
- Materials and methods: the description of the study group should be moved here from the Results section. The acronyms in section 2.1 should be clarified. Figures 2 and 3 are to small and therefore illegible.
- Results: it should be better to present in the table and provide the minimum, maximum, mean and SD values od deviations at the insertion and apical points of the implants as well as axis deviation and depth error.
- Discussion: supplemented results can be compared with the results of other researchers, e.g.
D'haese R, Vrombaut T, Hommez G, De Bruyn H, Vandeweghe S. Accuracy of guided implant surgery in the edentulous jaw using desktop 3D-orinted mucosal supported guides. J Clin Med 2021;10(3):391. doi: 10.3390/jcm10030391.
Pettersson A, Kero T, Söderberg R, Näsström K. Accuracy of virtually planned and CAD/CAM-guided implant surgery on plastic models. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(6):1472−8. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.01.029
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved.
Author Response
Thanks for your suggestions that improved the quality of the manuscript
