Impact of Different Access Cavity Designs and Ni–Ti Files on the Elimination of Enterococcus faecalis from the Root Canal System: An In Vitro Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for such an interesting paper.
Please include a figure showing the 5 instrumentation and three channel preparations. For channel include real tooth image including some measurements.
Please refer the diamond bur. is it https://stevensondentalsolutions.com/product/856-016-diamond-bur/?
Change line 149 to table format to show that we have 3 cavities x 5 instrumentation x 10 repetitions = 150 samples
For results include results without any instrumentation for each channel and without channel. These means (3+1)x10=40 extra samples. I understand it might be difficult but it would help to understand the effect of each step in bacterial reduction.
Author Response
08.02.2022
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciated your constructive criticisms for improving our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your comments/recommendations and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Herein, we explain how we revised the research paper based on your comments and suggestions. All corrections were made in MS Word program. The changes were marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the manuscript. Thank you again for your deep and thorough review.
Best Regards,
Fatma Basmaci DDS, PhD
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Cyprus, Nicosia
Phone: +903926802030-2633,
Fax: +903926802025,
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
Thank you for such an interesting paper.
Comment 1: Please include a figure showing the 5 instrumentation and three channel preparations. For channel include real tooth image including some measurements.
Response 1: In accordance with your valuable comment, we added a figure to the manuscript regarding the channel preparations, bacterial loading, instrumentation and sampling procedures.
Comment 2: Please refer the diamond bur. is it https://stevensondentalsolutions.com/product/856-016-diamond-bur/?
Response 2: We added the brand of the diamond bur to our manuscript in the Materials and Methods section.
Comment 3: Change line 149 to table format to show that we have 3 cavities x 5 instrumentation x 10 repetitions = 150 samples
Response 3: Thank you again for you valuable comment. In accordance with the reviewer's comment, we have added a new table to show 3 cavities x 5 instrumentation x 10 repetitions.
Comment 4: For results include results without any instrumentation for each channel and without channel. These means (3+1)x10=40 extra samples. I understand it might be difficult but it would help to understand the effect of each step in bacterial reduction.
Response 4: With respect to your comment, the aim of our study is to investigate the effect of different file systems on bacteria reduction. Adding this group would not add any data, since opening the access cavity alone has no effect on bacteria reduction from root canals. In our study, we created our groups based on the studies in the literature.
- Tüfenkçi, P.; Yılmaz, K. The effects of different endodontic access cavity design and using XP-endo finisher on the reduction of Enterococcus faecalis in the root canal system. J Endod, 2020, 46, 419-424.
- Barbosa, A.F.A.; Silva, E.J.N.L.; Coelho, B.P.; et al. The influence of endodontic access cavity design on the efficacy of canal instrumentation, microbial reduction, root canal filling and fracture resistance in mandibular molars. Int Endod J, 2020, 53, 1666-1679.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the effort they have made in researching this topic. It is a very interesting study presenting the impact of different access cavity designs and ni-ti files on the elimination of enterococcus faecalis from the root canal system.
However, I would like to recommend some considerations:
Introduction: - include the null hypothesis of the study
Materials and methods: - please include a diagram or scheme concerning sample distribution, it would be more concise and explicit, also some images for cavity preparation.
Results: - correct
Discussions
- Discuss the null hypothesis
- Include some limitations of the study (eg. Shape of the root canal, other factors influencing bacterial elimination, etc.).
Conclusions- correct
Author Response
08.02.2022
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciated your constructive criticisms for improving our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your comments/recommendations and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Herein, we explain how we revised the research paper based on your comments and suggestions. All corrections were made in MS Word program. The changes were marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the manuscript. Thank you again for your deep and thorough review.
Best Regards,
Fatma Basmaci DDS, PhD
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Cyprus, Nicosia
Phone: +903926802030-2633,
Fax: +903926802025,
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer: 2
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the effort they have made in researching this topic. It is a very interesting study presenting the impact of different access cavity designs and ni-ti files on the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis from the root canal system.
However, I would like to recommend some considerations:
Comment 1: Introduction: - include the null hypothesis of the study
Response 1: As you suggested, the null hypothesis is added to the end of the introduction part.
Comment 2: Materials and methods: - please include a diagram or scheme concerning sample distribution, it would be more concise and explicit, also some images for cavity preparation.
Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a new table and figure to show our groups and experimental procedures in Materials and Methods section.
Comment 3: Discuss the null hypothesis
Include some limitations of the study (eg. Shape of the root canal, other factors influencing bacterial elimination, etc.).
Response 3: Thank you again for your valuable comment. In accordance with the reviewer's comment, we discussed the null hypothesis. We have also added some limitations of our study in the Discussion section.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for your paper. In this paper, the authors presented a study entitled “ Impact of Different Access Cavity Designs and Ni-Ti Files on the Elimination of Enterococcus faecalis from the Root Canal System ” aiming to assess the impact of different endodontic file systems in mandibular molar teeth with different endodontic access cavity concepts on decreasing E. faecalis levels in root canal systems.
In general, the manuscript is very interesting and well-written. However, major corrections are required to improve the overall quality. An English-language review is required.
My recommendations are the following:
Please insert on the title and abstract the type of the study in order to be immediately understandable for the reader. The abstract section is well-done . The introduction section is well-performed. Please insert the null hypothesis at the end of this section. The materials and methods section: Please specify if all cavity preparation was performed by the same operator or not.
Line 146: As a suggestion you could add some images to understand in a more immediate way the groups and subgroups selected. Specify whether tooth instrumentation was also performed by the same operator. Discuss the limitations of the study in a separate paragraph. Bibliography is not formatted correctly. Check the journal guidelines. Formatting is not adequate.
Author Response
08.02.2022
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciated your constructive criticisms for improving our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your comments/recommendations and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Herein, we explain how we revised the research paper based on your comments and suggestions. All corrections were made in MS Word program. The changes were marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the manuscript. Thank you again for your deep and thorough review.
Best Regards,
Fatma Basmaci DDS, PhD
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University, Cyprus, Nicosia
Phone: +903926802030-2633,
Fax: +903926802025,
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer: 3
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for your paper. In this paper, the authors presented a study entitled “ Impact of Different Access Cavity Designs and Ni-Ti Files on the Elimination of Enterococcus faecalis from the Root Canal System ” aiming to assess the impact of different endodontic file systems in mandibular molar teeth with different endodontic access cavity concepts on decreasing E. faecalis levels in root canal systems.
In general, the manuscript is very interesting and well-written. However, major corrections are required to improve the overall quality. An English-language review is required.
My recommendations are the following:
Comment 1: Please insert on the title and abstract the type of the study in order to be immediately understandable for the reader.
Response 1: As suggested, the type of the study was inserted on the title and abstract.
Comment 2: Please insert the null hypothesis at the end of this section.
Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. As you suggested, the null hypothesis is added to the end of the introduction part.
Comment 3: The materials and methods section: Please specify if all cavity preparation was performed by the same operator or not.
Response 3: Thank you again for you valuable comment. In accordance with the reviewer's comment, we added this information in the Materials and Methods section.
Comment 4: Line 146: As a suggestion you could add some images to understand in a more immediate way the groups and subgroups selected.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We added a table and image to show our groups in the Materials and Methods section.
Comment 5: Specify whether tooth instrumentation was also performed by the same operator.
Response 5: We agree with the reviewer on this point and have incorporated your suggestion into the materials and methods section.
Comment 6: Discuss the limitations of the study in a separate paragraph.
Response 6: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. We have made this revision accordingly.
Comment 7: Bibliography is not formatted correctly. Check the journal guidelines. Formatting is not adequate.
Response 7: Thank you very much for the reminder. Structure of the reference section was changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your new submission. You have addressed all my previous comments. I think figure1 requires names for pictures of cavity preparation. Top is TEC? Middle is CEC? and bottom is TAC?
Author Response
Once again, thank you very much for your kind concern. We added an explanation about the names of the cavity preparations on Figure 1. Top is TEC, middle is TAC and bottom is CEC.
