Validation of a Novel Diagnostic Test for Assessing the Risk of Peri-Implantitis through the Identification of the Microorganisms Present: A Pilot Clinical Study of Periopoc

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The sample size is too small. Combined with other factors that may affect the development of peri-implantitis, such as the type of prosthetic connection, the interpretation of the results is inconclusive.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The manuscript is interesting, but I believe some points can be better explained in order to be improved and further be eligible for publication .

1- Introduction- Those bacteria listed as present in diseased implants, are also present on healthy conditions, as Socransky also cited , but this was not referred. Please review this information ; 

2- Materials and Methods- In order to validate the test to determine the risk for peri-implantitis, don't you think the adequate method would be asses the peri-implant sulcus immediately after prosthesis installation , and compare the results after one year ? Asses after the diagnosis is made is not predict the risk! Please review the title, objective  and objective of the manuscript;

3- Results- The number of participants of the study is very low. Why not consider this study as a pilot study? Even the conclusion is hard to accept as certain because of this;

4- Discussion- Good discussion, in my opinion, covered most of the important areas to be discussed, and limitations of the study design;

5- Conclusions- there is no conclusion written, only limitations of the test. Please write the conclusion of the study, i.e., what can be seen on the results;

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The idea about the diagnostic test for assessing the risk of peri-implantitis through the Identification of the microorganisms present is novel and very interesting.

I only have two little questions. Firstly, there are only 23 patients which maybe a little small for diagnostic test to get reliable analysis. Secondly, why the authors chose patients had their implants loaded for at least 1 year but not more than 18 months, I think the longer the implants loaded, the more bacteria can be tested.

Need to describe the results more accurately

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Based on the reviewer's concerns, the authors responded that there were limitations to the study, which did not justify its publication.