Tongue Pressure Declines Early on in Patients with Malocclusion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an article about the relationship between the maximum tongue pressure and orthodontic parameters.

In Results, correlation coefficients should be make up into table. Furthermore, there is no description of the correlation coefficient between MTP and tongue width (P.4 L.129). It is necessary because they were mentioned in Discussion (P.5 L.166).

There are some unclear description in Discussion. The data of the results with and without description of the correlation coefficients were mixed in discussion. Description of “≥ 18 age group” in the Table 1 should be integrated into “age 18-40” in discussion (P.4 L.144). Because, in discussion earlier loss of MTP in the malocclusion patients was mentioned (P.4 L.147). To compare with the normal population, it is necessary to quote the range of the age with decrease the MTP in normal population from reference No. 1,15,24(P.4 L.147).

If the space filling movement of the tongue was occurred in open bite patients, MTP might increase with the movement of the tongue. If it becomes so, the negative correlation between MTP and OJ might be not observed. It is necessary the reference mention that the severe OJ is 7 mm or greater (P.4 L.153). Similarly, the reference is necessary about the loss of tonality as human age (P.5 L.168). It is unclear the description of “CITE” quotes (P.5 L.159,171,184,185).

Author Response

Dear Editors,

 

Thank you for the efficient review and also inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled “Tongue Pressure Declines early on in Patients with Malocclusion” to your prestigious journal. We also appreciate the time and effort you and each of the reviewers have dedicated to providing helpful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper. Thus, it is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have incorporated changes that reflect the suggestions you have graciously provided. We also hope that the edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted.

 

To facilitate your review of our revisions, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your letter dated 27th April 2022.

 

Reviewer 1:

 

Point 1: In Results, correlation coefficients should be make up into table. Furthermore, there is no description of the correlation coefficient between MTP and tongue width (P.4 L.129). It is necessary because they were mentioned in Discussion (P.5 L.166).

 

Response 1: Thank you for your review. Instead of a table, we have added one figure (Figure 5) to show the correlation between MTP and tongue width.

 

Point 2: There are some unclear description in Discussion. The data of the results with and without description of the correlation coefficients were mixed in discussion. Description of “≥ 18 age group” in the Table 1 should be integrated into “age 18-40” in discussion (P.4 L.144). Because, in discussion earlier loss of MTP in the malocclusion patients was mentioned (P.4 L.147). To compare with the normal population, it is necessary to quote the range of the age with decrease the MTP in normal population from reference No. 1,15,24(P.4 L.147).

 

Response 2: Thank you for your review. We have updated Table 1 and also changed the age grouping to <20 age group and age 20-40. In addition, we added one bar graph showing significant differences between tongu pressures in twenties versus thirties. This early decline is in contrast to significant decline in sixties reported in normal population.

 

Point 3: If the space filling movement of the tongue was occurred in open bite patients, MTP might increase with the movement of the tongue. If it becomes so, the negative correlation between MTP and OJ might be not observed. It is necessary the reference mention that the severe OJ is 7 mm or greater (P.4 L.153). Similarly, the reference is necessary about the loss of tonality as human age (P.5 L.168). It is unclear the description of “CITE” quotes (P.5 L.159,171,184,185).

 

Response 3: Thank you for your review. We have updated our references.

 

Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your helpful comments and queries. We hope that these revisions meet with your approval.

 

Sincerely,

Chia-Yu Chen, DDS, DMSc

Harvard School of Dental Medicine

Dept. Oral Medicine, Infection and Immunity

188 Longwood Avenue

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors investigated the relationship between maximum tongue force of young subjects by recruiting subjects who were looking for orthodontic treatments. This study filled the gap of knowledge between the pediatric and elders. I have the following minor suggestion/concerns:

1.The experiment was well designed, and the collected data were thoroughly analyzed. The manuscript was well written overall, except some missing citations (line159, 171, 184 and 185). 

2. The limitation/future directions part should be moved after the conclusion.

3. Why did the authors use age 18 as a dividing age point to divide the data into two age group? Is there any data mining technique could be used to detect the dividing age point?

Author Response

Dear Editors,

 

Thank you for the efficient review and also inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled “Tongue Pressure Declines early on in Patients with Malocclusion” to your prestigious journal. We also appreciate the time and effort you and each of the reviewers have dedicated to providing helpful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper. Thus, it is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have incorporated changes that reflect the suggestions you have graciously provided. We also hope that the edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted.

 

To facilitate your review of our revisions, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your letter dated 27th April 2022.

 

Reviewer 2:

 

Point 1: The experiment was well designed, and the collected data were thoroughly analyzed. The manuscript was well written overall, except some missing citations (line159, 171, 184 and 185).

 

Response 1: Thank you for your review. We have updated the missing citations.

 

Point 2: The limitation/future directions part should be moved after the conclusion.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your review. In line with the format provided by the journal, we will not be able to move the limitation/future directions part after the conclusion. However, in the discussion section, we removed the subheading for “limitation/future directions” and changed it into paragraph.  

 

Point 3: Why did the authors use age 18 as a dividing age point to divide the data into two age group? Is there any data mining technique could be used to detect the dividing age point?

 

Response 3: Thank you for your review and pointing this out. Originally, age 18 was written in the manuscript due to local laws in Japan designating underage group as <18. However, to better present the data, we have updated Table 1 as well as Figure 1 to reflect age groups as <20 and 20-40.

 

Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your helpful comments and queries. We hope that these revisions meet with your approval.

 

Sincerely,

Chia-Yu Chen, DDS, DMSc

Harvard School of Dental Medicine

Dept. Oral Medicine, Infection and Immunity

188 Longwood Avenue

Author Response File: Author Response.docx