Microbiological and Physical Changes Produced by Different Air–Powders on Contaminated Titanium Implant Surfaces: An In Vitro Pilot Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction and discussion should be improved with the suggested references

Materials and methods are well described and pertinent

Results are clearly described and very coherent with the materials and methods

CONCLUSION is correct and interesting.

 

However, the suggested references are for the following topics:

 

 

AUTHORS SHOULD PLACE MORE EMPHASIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF HYGIENE FOLLOW-UPS IN IMPLANT REHABILITATION CASES USING THE RECOMMENDED BIBLIOGRAPHIES

 

PMID: PubMed ID 34425659

PubMed ID 34425666

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 53:      BoP- spell out

Line 78       please be more specific than “titanium disc characteristics”.

Line 79       Insert a hypothesis

Line 82       pure titanium or titanium alloy, please specify

Line 98       Figure 1 must be explained I more detail

Line 125     Groups 1-7 must be shown i Figure 1

Lines 185-201: Can be shortened with reference to the description starting one line 115

Line 214     use the group designation in the results

Line 215     the paragraph starting with “The percentage of remaining biofilm were for Prophy Pearls Classic® 71.6% (SD ± 5.4%)” are not consisted with Figure 3.

Lines 215- 223 Double documentation with Figures 3 and 4. Please use either text or Figure.

Lines 241-246 Double documentation with Figures 5 and 6. Please use either text or Figure.

Line 266     The SEM description must be related to the different test groups. The text is now without meaning for differentiating the treatments.

Line 275     Poor qualities on many of the Figure 7 images. Needs improvement.

Line 291     In line 82, it is stated “, it was designed as a pilot study to generate data  to run a power analysis for the sample size calculation.” This sample size calculation is not presented.

Line 292     Figure 8: It is more logic to show pre-treatment bars before post treatment. Please correct

Line 294     Please explain RA and RMS values in the figure text.

Lines 331-337 Move to introduction

Lines 397-401 Move to last part of discussion, the paragraph is not a conclusion of the study.

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper "Microbiological and physical changes produced by different air-powders on contaminated titanium implant surfaces: an in-vitro pilot study" assessed the ability of different powders for air polishing to reduce mono bacterial biofilm and to produce surface changes on the titanium discs. This is a relevances topic, receiving a lot of attention. The methods used for the assessment are contemporary and reliable. However, the article has some shortcomings, that should be corrected.

1) The abstract is too general. It would be better to remove general sentences and add the types of powders and more detailed about results instead.

2) line 16: in-vitro should be in vitro

3) line 21: The sentence "Data were statistically analyzed" bears no information. Either specify the statistical tests or remove it at all.

4) line 45 risk-factor is risk factor

5) line 87 - the sentence is suitable for Discussion, but no for the Materias and methods section

6) lines 90-92 "...so that one half of 90 the discs received treatment and the other half acted as a control. Six discs were left intact: 91 2 of these did not receive any treatment and acted as a control..." so what served as a control? intact discs or halves of the treated discs? It is confusing.

7) Figure 1 is also confusing. The coloured bottles should better have the names of the powders instead of their sizes; the halves of the discs should be marked in a more clear way: which were contaminated, which were air-powder polished? Which were left totally untreated?

8) line 120: is 90-degree angle recommended for implant air-polishing? Please, provide a link

9) line 117: halves of the discs were covered with paraffin after inoculation. Could this possibly influence the attached biofilm?

10) line 215: The sentence "The percentage of remaining biofilm were for Prophy Pearls Classic® 71.6% (SD ± 5.4%), 215 for Air Flow powder Classic Comfort® 78.8% (SD ± 1.0%), for Air flow powder Classic® 216 80.5% (SD ± 0.9%), for Plus+CPC® 83.4% (SD ± 3.5%), for distilled water by 86.8% (SD ± 217 1.8%), for Air-Flow Powder Plus® 88.6% (SD ± 3.9%) and for Air-Flow Powder Perio 87.2% 218 (SD ± 1.8%). " seem to be wrong, as, according to the fig.3 percentage of remaining biofilm is much smaller, while in the sentence the percentages by which the reduction occurred is listed.

11) In 3.3. Profilometry it is mentioned that "Minor differences were noted in both Ra and RMS values, before and after 290 treatment." Were this differences statistically significant?

12) Conclusion "treatments were able to reduce biofilm up to 89.3%" I think it should be not up to but by

13) how was the sufficient sample size assessed?

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Figure 1: I am afraid that the authors have misunderstood the previously given comment to the figure.

“Group 1” , “Group 2” and so on MUST be given in text in the figure.

Lines 219 and 253: Please indicate the angle between the air flow and the surface, not the angle of the handpiece.

Line 314: Figure 3. Authors MUST change figure and use group designations (Group 1, Group 2, ….)

Line 314: Figure 4 legend. Authors MUST use group designation (Group 1, Group 2, ….) in the description [i.e. (C) Group 7 distilled water]

Line 333: Figure 5. Authors MUST change figure and use group designations (Group 1, Group 2, ….)

Line 335: Figure 6 legend. Authors MUST use group designation (Group 1, Group 2, ….) in the description [i.e. (C) Group 7 distilled water]

Figures 3-6: It is confusing that the results are presented in a different order than the groups given in the M&M text (from line 224)

Line 379: Table 1 and Table 2: Add group designation and combine the two tables!

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx