Dimensional Changes in Extraction Sockets: A Pilot Study Evaluating Differences between Digital and Conventional Impressions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This article seems to present a relevant discussion about different methodologies for accessing soft tissue changes through time.

However, the presentation of the employed comparison method leaves room for doubt over its quality.

My main concerns are as following:

- Materials and Methods:

Not mentioning the final number of patients and teeth involved in the study.

- Measurement:

o   A cross-section analysis was employed to evaluate the superimposed models. There is a lack of description of how it was performed, what reference was used in the sectioning and how it could be reproducible between samples.

o   Use of a subjective parameter (long axis of the extraction socket). Lack of information about its arbitrary identification and its reproducibility between different samples.

- Discussion:

o   The objective of the study had so far been presented as the methodological comparison between two modalities of assessment of soft tissue changes (digital and conventional impressions). However, in this section, a discussion of trueness is presented, diverging from the original theme, and presenting the conventional impressions as the “reference” method for the first time.

o   Description of a new outcome (“the jaw - maxilla or mandible - significantly affected the tissue changes and discrepancies”), that has no foundation in the presented results and had not been forementioned.

- Conclusion: This section is vague and does not summarize the findings of the study.

After solving these questions, the study could be reconsidered for publishing.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion the authors have right, the number of the patients are too small. On the other hand, It is important to describe how does the fresh extractions can influence the accuracy o the clasic impressions on the same time with digital one. The wound in the first case, the blood in the second one, can influence this. 

The alveolar ridge preservation is an important topic for dental surgery, so some explanations about the reasons for difference in accuracy is important. In the same time, the factor that can influence this are important to be emphasise. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for addressing the previous comments.
My only suggestions is:

- To better describe how the cross-section was performed on the superimposed files (was it performed over the "line perpendicular to the tangent of the dental arch at 155 the midpoint of the extraction site"?).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx