Next Article in Journal
Quality Assessment of Dual-Parallel Edge Deblocking Filter Architecture for HEVC/H.265
Previous Article in Journal
Leveraging Machine Learning and Semi-Structured Information to Identify Political Views from Social Media Posts
 
 
Case Report
Peer-Review Record

Treatment Possibilities in Mandibular Defect Reconstruction Based on Ameloblastic Fibro-Odontoma Treatment—Does Small Bone Defects Heal without Bone Grafting?

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(24), 12963; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412963
by Kamil Nelke 1,*, Wojciech Pawlak 1, Marceli Łukaszewski 2, Maciej Janeczek 3, Edyta Pasicka 3,*, Szczepan Barnaś 4, Monika Morawska-Kochman 5 and Maciej Dobrzyński 6
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(24), 12963; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412963
Submission received: 27 November 2022 / Revised: 14 December 2022 / Accepted: 15 December 2022 / Published: 16 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Materials Science and Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors did improve their paper. The current title is suitable. The abstract is very wordy and it lacks details about the presented case. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Thank you for the review. Comment 1 - The authors did improve their paper. Response comment 1 - Dear rewiever thank you very much for kind words. Its all thank to your great comments and golden hints that made this paper better. Thank you Comment 2 - Response comment 2 - The current title is suitable. Dear rewiever thank you very much. Comment 3 - Response comment 2 - The abstract is very wordy and it lacks details about the presented case. Dear rewiever thank you very much. The abstract had been re-arranged, shortened and more case data is present

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Many thanks to the authors for the submission. The topic is interesting, however some modifications are required.

1) in the introduction section too much has been dedicated to pathology, while the title of this research aims to evaluate recovery of defects after surgery, for this reason the text from line 107 to 113 should be removed.

2) The original topic of this research should be underlined in the introduction section: for this reason at line 116 the present phrase should be added after "procedures...

"..Bone graft could be performed with calvarial, iliac or fibula graft, while GBR is performed with autogenous and/or synthetic biomaterials. Recovery after regenerative interventions may be related to a period after surgery of delayed or complicated healing."

please cite the following

Sassano P, Gennaro P, Chisci G, Gabriele G, Aboh IV, Mitro V, di Curzio P. Calvarial onlay graft and submental incision in treatment of atrophic edentulous mandibles: an approach to reduce postoperative complications. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(2):693-7. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000611. PMID: 24621726.

Ebraheim NA, Elgafy H, Xu R. Bone-graft harvesting from iliac and fibular donor sites: techniques and complications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001 May-Jun;9(3):210-8. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200105000-00007. PMID: 11421578.

Chisci G, Fredianelli L. Therapeutic Efficacy of Bromelain in Alveolar Ridge Preservation. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022 Nov 3;11(11):1542. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11111542. PMID: 36358197; PMCID: PMC9687015.

3)please provide a full check of use of english and grammar of the paper

 

4) the discussion section from 345 to 357 should be removed as not related to the topic of this paper

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for the review.
Comment 1 - Many thanks to the authors for the submission. The topic is interesting, however some modifications are required.
Response comment 1 - Dear rewiever thank you very much for kind words. On behalf of myself and all co-authors, we will do wahtever it takes to make the paper better.

Comment 2 - in the introduction section too much has been dedicated to pathology, while the title of this research aims to evaluate recovery of defects after surgery, for this reason the text from line 107 to 113 should be removed.
Response comment 2 - Dear rewiever thank you very much, the text a/s was deleted. 

Comment 3 - The original topic of this research should be underlined in the introduction section: for this reason at line 116 the present phrase should be added after "procedures... - "..Bone graft could be performed with calvarial, iliac or fibula graft, while GBR is performed with autogenous and/or synthetic biomaterials. Recovery after regenerative interventions may be related to a period after surgery of delayed or complicated healing."
Response comment 3 - Dear rewiever thank you very much, following sentence was added. 

Comment 4 - please cite the following - 
Sassano P, Gennaro P, Chisci G, Gabriele G, Aboh IV, Mitro V, di Curzio P. Calvarial onlay graft and submental incision in treatment of atrophic edentulous mandibles: an approach to reduce postoperative complications. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(2):693-7. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000611. PMID: 24621726.
Ebraheim NA, Elgafy H, Xu R. Bone-graft harvesting from iliac and fibular donor sites: techniques and complications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001 May-Jun;9(3):210-8. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200105000-00007. PMID: 11421578.
Chisci G, Fredianelli L. Therapeutic Efficacy of Bromelain in Alveolar Ridge Preservation. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022 Nov 3;11(11):1542. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11111542. PMID: 36358197; PMCID: PMC9687015.
Response comment 4 - Dear rewiever thank you very much, following citation was added. 

Comment 5 - please provide a full check of use of english and grammar of the paper
Response comment 5 - Dear rewiever thank you very much, following issue was arranged.

Comment 6 - the discussion section from 345 to 357 should be removed as not related to the topic of this paper
Response comment 6 - Dear rewiever thank you very much, the text a/s was deleted. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

accept

Author Response

Hello

Dear reviewer, thank you for your kind support and wise advice. It was a great pleasure working with you. Thank you

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article contains little new knowledge, it summarises the current state of knowledge.  Unfortunately, there are numerous editing errors in the article that limit readability. In addition, it is unclear why the values in Z48 are in brackets. The title is inaccurate and suggests that different treatment techniques are presented. However, there is only one case and when listing the treatment options, there is no concretisation of which situations have which indication. In particular, there are no metric parameters or exact specifications of what the findings should be. In addition, there is no list of which measure is associated with which success. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper of Nelke et al. is a case report about a case diagnosed with AFO.

To begin with, the title does not reflect the content of this case report, the term “treatment possibilities” provide an indication that the authors tried several treatment modalities and reported results, which is not true for this paper. I would suggest choosing a title that stated “an overview of treatment modalities ….”

The English language needs thorough revision and correction, there is extensive use of some terms like “herein”, “however”, “in old studies” and others. There is a clear problem in using punctuation which makes understanding ideas difficult.

The abstract is very wordy and should be revised and rephrased. Please mention details about the reported case in the abstract and the outcomes, so readers can understand what they are reading about from the beginning.

Overall, the introduction is very long and wordy. I would suggest that authors concentrate on the current knowledge in this field instead of providing a historical overview of the condition, or at least they should summarize lines from 44 to 65 to 2 or 3 lines.

The “case report presentation” was presented adequately and comprehensively

The conclusion is irrelevant and not supported by the presented evidence

Back to TopTop