The Surgical Guides for TADs: The Rational and Laboratory Procedures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
To whom it may concern,
Please change the following accordingly,
- choose type of paper you are submitting
- author affiliations and names are not written in the style of this Journal
- square brackets [ ] should be used instead of parentheses ( ); please check “Author guidelines”
- “…CAD/CAM technology and the affordability of 3D printers. (13)” reference number should be placed before full-stop
- “Such unwanted complications happen, especially in inter-roots implantation (Park 2006).” wrong referencing and citation style
- in the number reference system the references are listed in numerical order as they appear in the text; In the introduction section after reference 13, next one is reference 16
- “…the interdental bone may not be available to accommodate these dimensions (17,18,19).”; if you are citing 3 references in the row, correct way to do it is [17-19].
- “The placement of TADS is required either in interdental bone or other safe anatomical
-sites of the maxilla and mandible. Several factors determine the safety and stability of
-TAD, a significant consideration being their accurate insertion in location and angulation
-without hindering the other anatomical structures, such as dental roots, before and during
-dental movements. By having complete control over the placement, an orthodontist can
-conduct orthodontic biomechanics in an organized and optimized manner, resulting in
-reduced treatment duration and the quality of treatment outcome.”; this is an example of statements that need citation
- Figure 3. is missing a title
- Figure 4., 5., and 6. maybe would be more appropriate to address as Figure 4. A)intraoral picture, B) lateral view, and C) occlusal view of CBCT
- Figure 8. and its title should be positioned together
- Digital Workflow section is lacking manufacturer details (intraoral scanner used, CBCT X-ray machine..)
- Figures 8-11,13. are lacking the title; as well, Figure 8 is repeated twice
- In my opinion, promotional images of printers and printing resins, which can be found on manufacturer websites, should not be figures in a scientific article
- In the Conclusion section, state the most important outcome of Your work. Do not simply summarize the points already made in the body, or findings of other research papers — instead, interpret your findings at a higher level of abstraction. Show whether, or to what extent, you have succeeded in addressing the need stated in the Introduction section.
- Referencing style is wrong, please check the Author guidelines
- There are a couple of quite old references (i.e. 1989,2003..). I believe you may find recent articles addressing the same problem
I believe that the main problem of this paper is of a technical nature. The same mistakes appear throughout the text, such as the manner of citation, parentheses, stating facts without reference, lack of figure titles etc.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for the hard work done in reading and providing the inside thought in reading this article.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the authors
Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript entitled “The surgical guides for TADs: the rational and laboratory procedures”. In this article, the authors provide rational to the use of surgical guide in addition to orthodontic TADs, followed by a step-by-step protocol on how to design and utilize a surgical guide.
As a general comment, I don’t know how feasible would be in a clinical practice to insert the use of the surgical guide for such a non-invasive and routine use of TADs along an orthodontic treatment plan. The surgical guides are expensive and require either the software owned by the orthodontist or the dental practice, or charges from a specialized lab. I wonder how feasible is to include this expense in addition to the use of TADs. TADs should be used as a way to increase anchorage, to minimize unwanted orthodontic movements. They are supposed to be temporarily used, so I have doubts that clinicians would be willing to invest money to design and fabricate a surgical guide, when the TADs are only temporary placed in the mouth. Moreover, considering how easy is to remove and place them in a different location, when obstacles like roots are encountered, I really do not know how adding a surgical guide might be feasible in the real orthodontic world.
A second major limitation is that the majority of the manuscript is not supported at all from references. Scientific manuscripts cannot just be the free ideas of the authors, but should convey solid evidence, supported by previous published literature.
Abstract: it is not clear why they talk about implant placement, when the surgical guide should be used for TADs. here.
Introduction:
- I encourage the authors to pay attention at the format of the references, which according to the guidelines of the journal requires the brackets.
- page 1, I have issues with the fact that the TADs is one of the most effective ways to move dental units in a 3D motion. This is surely not one of the tasks of the TADs. Not that I have ever heard a tooth not moving in a 3D space, by the way. There are so many roles of the TADs, that I invite the authors to pick a more appropriate one.
- English language is not smooth. For example, “problems with the collusion of the roots during TADS placement and surgical trauma have hindered the use of these TADs”. Moreover, how a surgical guide would decrease the surgical trauma? I do not think that this is an appropriate task resolved by the use of the surgical guide.
- “one of the solutions to the safe placement of TADS” might be to be guided from radiological guidance, in addition to follow step-by-step procedures and surgical guides.
- the authors should submit the manuscript with row number, so that it is easy to highlight the issues in the manuscript.
- English language issue: “One of the critical areas if the implantation itself, causing trauma to the tooth’s root, and damaged periodontal membrane to a hole in the root”. Not scientific language. Replace “implantation” with “placement”
- reference is placed not into the reference list : Park 2006
- the introduction is confusing in the flow and not structured in an articulate organization. It would benefit from listing why the orthodontists use TADs first, then listing which are the complications and difficulties while using TADs, and why surgical guide can help. I also have some issues against the validity of supporting the use of the surgical guide in ortho by comparing it with the precision obtained when used in addition to implant placement. This is because the implant necessarily needs to have a certain location, inclination to host a crown that will be in occlusion and needs to mechanically function and resist for more than 20 years. On the contrary, TADs are supposed to stay and be functional in the mouth for a very short period of time, until the movement requested is achieved and completed. The authors need to provide compelling reasons why they are advocating for the use of surgical guide with TADs. The comparison with the implant is not strong enough for different survival need and functions.
- I do not believe that the “benefit for patients is less trauma” when a surgical guide is added to the placement of tADs. I invite the authors to omit this sentence or to support it with strong references.
Section 2.1 and 2.1.1 lacks completely every sort of references. At least, if possible, the values of forces, diameters, location need to be supported by references.
I also suggest that the authors create a sort of “Timeline” where they list all the steps to take in order, instead of just being a long paragraph or section.
- no abbreviations are allowed in scientific writing (for example “it’s best”)
- the section would benefit if the authors provide a summative table with the preferred location of the TADs according to the malocclusion to treat. Some information are embedded in the section, but they are not provided in a systemic way at the moment.
Seciton 2.1.2 Legal issues and unnecessarily radiographic exposure would result if at each TAD placement, there needs to follow a CBCT. How can the authors justify a CBCT when the TADs are temporarily device, used actively for < 12 months?
Section 2.2.1 The first paragraph contains several repetitions in the message conveyed.
I invite the authors also to provide a section where they discuss the disadvantage of this system (high cost, unnecessary radiation, …).
I suggest that the authors switch the order of part 2 with part 1. Put how to do a surgical guide first, and then you report Part 1.
Extensive English editing is required. I highlighted in my comments some of the most obvious ones, but there are other passages throughout the manuscript that requires extensive re-editing.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments, we attached the response, please check it
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper itself is well written and documented, showing a great effort from the authors.
The topic is definitely a trending topic in current orthodontic research and with an interesting clinical meaning.
I also would make only the following few mentions:
- Please correct the frontal page writing the author list according to the guidelines of the journal and specify the type of paper (article, review,…)
- Please review the English of the paper
- I suggest the authors to use the term miniscrew or Tad instead of implant
- I suggest to correct the title of the paper since only the procedure of insertion into the mandibular site is described
Otherwise the paper is good.
I suggest moderate english correction
Author Response
Thank you for the comments, we have revised the manuscript again and we appreciate it that you could check the version again. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The primary aim of this paper is to propose a protocol utilizing surgical guides for the placement of temporary anchorage devices (TADs). While the topic is intriguing, the paper falls short in providing novel and relevant information on the matter. Numerous statements within the paper lack proper references, and there are several errors in citation and the use of acronyms.
Authors are advised to thoroughly review and rectify the format of the paper, ensuring proper citation and adherence to the prescribed guidelines. Moreover, the paper should clearly elucidate the specific contributions it intends to make to the existing literature on the subject.
By addressing these concerns, the paper can be better positioned to contribute meaningfully to the field and provide valuable insights for further research and clinical applications.
Author Response
Your thoughtfulness is appreciated; I will reread and rewrite it to be as close to the suggestions as possible. Thank you very much.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I appreciate the effort you have put into your research and the compelling insights presented in the paper. However, after a thorough review, I have identified a few main issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
One of the main concerns with the manuscript is the incorrect referencing style used throughout the paper. The references are not according to the Author guidelines provided by the journal. Please carefully review the guidelines and ensure that all references are formatted correctly, including author names, publication titles, journal names, volume, issue, page numbers, and publication year.
Another issue observed in the manuscript is the inconsistent use of parenthesis instead of square brackets. It's essential to follow the proper usage of square brackets when referring to in-text citations or indicating editorial clarifications. Please revise the text and ensure the consistent application of square brackets where appropriate.
Despite some improvements, there are still some typos present in the manuscript.
To facilitate the revision process, I have highlighted specific instances of these issues throughout the manuscript. I kindly request that you address these concerns thoroughly in your revised version. Additionally, please carefully proofread the entire paper to ensure clarity, accuracy, and adherence to the journal's guidelines.
Once these issues are adequately addressed, the manuscript will be closer to meeting the standards required for publication. I look forward to reviewing your revised work and commend you again for your valuable contribution to the field.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for the comments, we have revised the manuscript again and we appreciate it that you could check the version again. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
None of my comments have been addressed. I do understand with some of the responses provided by the authors, for example when they justify the use of the TADs. But when they reply that they will make a correction as requested, and they do not do it, is relatively annoying and not respectful towards the hours that as reviewers we spend reviewing the manuscripts received.
For example, the majority of the manuscript still requires published scientific references to support the validity of the statements. A journal like Applied Science cannot publish a paper with no references in support.
Another example is that I asked to put the row numbers so that I could point out which passages needed to be amended. The authors replied that they did it, but they did not. The format of the reference is still not correct, as I pointed out. The authors said that they corrected it, but they did not.
I asked to pick more appropriate roles of the TADs, and this has not been done. I asked to improve the English language, and no change in the sentences has been made. I asked how TADs with surgical guide would decrease the surgical trauma, as it is still the same surgical trauma. And the authors replied that they try to help the newcomers to use this critical device.
I asked to completely amend the introduction, and the authors replied "thank you" without providing any corrections at all.
I asked to add a paragraph discussion the disadvantages of TADs, and this has not been done.
And so on for every of my comments. Therefore, I re-invite the authors to address the same comments of my first revision that have not been addressed.
Estensive English correction required
Author Response
Thank you for the comments, we have revised the manuscript again and we appreciate it that you could check the version again. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I see no relevant changes in this new version of the manuscript. Thus, I maintain my initial comments.
The primary aim of this paper is to propose a protocol utilizing surgical guides for the placement of temporary anchorage devices (TADs). While the topic is intriguing, the paper falls short in providing novel and relevant information on the matter. Numerous statements within the paper lack proper references, and there are several errors in citation and the use of acronyms.
Authors are advised to thoroughly review and rectify the format of the paper, ensuring proper citation and adherence to the prescribed guidelines. Moreover, the paper should clearly elucidate the specific contributions it intends to make to the existing literature on the subject.
By addressing these concerns, the paper can be better positioned to contribute meaningfully to the field and provide valuable insights for further research and clinical applications.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments, we have revised the manuscript again and we appreciate it that you could check the version again. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript with ID applsci-2480455 resubmitted to Applied Sciences and commend the authors for their evident efforts in enhancing its quality. However, certain structural and technical issues persist. The reference format needs correction where "[3~13]" should be revised to "[3-13]" for accuracy. Figure captions require adjustment; when figures are subsectioned (e.g., "1a" and "1b"), a single caption encompassing both subsections should be used instead of separate captions. References should be cited before full stops in rows 266 and 299. The recently added table titled "The advantages and disadvantages of using the surgical guide" lacks a table number and proper caption; it is recommended to label it as "Table 1" with the caption provided. The conclusion section appears lengthy; a more concise summary, adhering to the general guideline of not exceeding 10% of the text, would be beneficial. The referencing style requires correction, with an example provided for proper formatting.
1. Mah, J.; Bergstrand, F. Temporary Anchorage Devices: A Status Report. J Clin Orthod. 2005, 39 (3), 132–6
While improvements have been made, addressing these points will ensure alignment with Applied Sciences' standards.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the authors
I thank you the authors for providing an updated version of their work, with a carefully rebuttal of their response.
English language is still a huge problem. Applied Science is a good, relatively high-quality journal, and unless a major revision of English language is done, either from the authors or from the editorial office of the journal, otherwise the current version is not suitable for a scientific publication. For example, pag 2 lines 68-75; pag 2 lines 56 to 57.
The introduction has slightly improved from the last version, and I do not have any further comment on this.
Part 1: avoid all the language “if you consider”, “you will need” (page 2 line 90 and lines 92). Rather, transform it in “if TADs need to be placed in the interdental bone…”. And “ in interdental placement, at least 2.4 mm of bone is needed”. Still, these two sentences require a reference.
Avoid “must” (page 3 line 95 and line 97). This paragraph (page 3, line 95 to 106) needs references to support what you are saying here.
Page 3, line 108 to 110: this sentence does not make sense. “ periodontal health and mobility are avoided to stabilize the surgical guide”, please change it to reflect what you really want to say.
Page 3, line 120: it might be worth it to expand the “success and failure of TADs”. Why TADs fail?
2.1.1 avoid abbreviation (line 132 page 3)
Line 143: “her mouth”. Do the authors imply that the patient is a female?
Page 4, lines 163-168 needs reference to support which are the best location for TADs placement.
Legend of figure 1 should only contain the description of the figure, and not the full explanation. This should be placed within the text. The same applies to Figure 2.
Page 5 lines 189-192: English language very unclear. The fact that there are torus lingualis is an advantage or disadvantage to the TAD placement? It is not clear with the use of “except”. Also, this paragraph of the mandibular TAD placement needs references.
Page lines 206-232 needs reference. For example, you have to support with reference that women have limited mandible ridge than men. The preferred location also requires references.
Conclusion: replace “stressful” with “challenging”. This is not a speculation of psychological issue of the procedure.
English is still very immature and difficult to follow
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The revised version of the manuscript demonstrates commendable improvements in terms of formatting, citation, and, to a certain extent, the rationale. However, upon thorough evaluation, it appears that the manuscript does not introduce substantial novel insights to the existing literature. The proposed approach, although well-presented, does not significantly differ from the conventional procedure for temporary anchorage devices (TADs) that has been described over the past decade.
While the manuscript showcases positive progress, it would be beneficial to ensure that the content contributes meaningfully to the current body of knowledge in the field. Highlighting distinct aspects or innovative elements in the proposed protocol could potentially enhance its originality and relevance within the context of TAD placement procedures.
Check the entire text for typos and minor grammar issues.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
