Dental Trauma Epidemiology in Primary Dentition: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Line 15

Rephrase the sentance: The traumatized teeth were 511 (mean 1.7 ± 0.5).

2. Line 98

Is there statistically significant difference when comparing total male and female participants?

3. Line 99

Report exact p value, not just >0.05.

4. Lines 101-105

Maybe present these results graphically.

5. Line 117

Rephrase the sentance "No significant differences were found regarding gender" in "No significant differences in DT causes and setting were found regarding gender" 

6. Lines 230-232

Incorrect interpunction: Thus,, the guidelines highlight the negative effects of both DT and an incorrect management from an inexperienced clinician, with a high potential to cause the development of post-traumatic stress disorder and dental anxiety. in young children. 

7. Line 236

Limitations of the study, suggestions for further studies, and conclusions are missing.

 

Finally, the manuscript is well-written and very interesting. But, I suggest above mentioned changes.

Author Response

1. Line 15

Rephrase the sentance: The traumatized teeth were 511 (mean 1.7 ± 0.5). DONE

2. Line 98

Is there statistically significant difference when comparing total male and female participants?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUGGESTION: THE DIFFERENCE IS SIGNIFICANT. WE CALCULATE CHI-SQUARE STATISTICS IN THE FIRST SECTION OF THE RESULTS

3. Line 99

Report exact p value, not just >0.05. DONE

4. Lines 101-105

Maybe present these results graphically. DONE

5. Line 117

Rephrase the sentance "No significant differences were found regarding gender" in "No significant differences in DT causes and setting were found regarding gender" DONE

6. Lines 230-232

Incorrect interpunction: Thus,, the guidelines highlight the negative effects of both DT and an incorrect management from an inexperienced clinician, with a high potential to cause the development of post-traumatic stress disorder and dental anxiety. in young children.  DONE

7. Line 236

Limitations of the study, suggestions for further studies, and conclusions are missing.

WE ADDED: The major limitation of the present study were the monocentric setting, the retrospective nature of the study and sample size. Despite these limitations, data provide a contribution to the epidemiological profile of primary teeth dental traumatology. A multi-center study data would make the results more objective.

CONCLUSION is not mandatory for applied science. however we added a brief conclusion.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The method should be better described. It is indicated that 2 dentists review the cases. Are they calibrated? Have they established concordance between them? Please, explain it better.

Why are patients with systemic illnesses and/or syndromes excluded? In the discussion it is highlighted that children with special needs are a group of society with a high risk of suffering injuries. If the study had included these patients, a comparison could be made by groups

 

I consider the bibliography to be excessive and some of the citations do not have much to do with the work, which should focus on the epidemiology of trauma. In addition, there are very old bibliographical citations. There are many more recent works on this subject.

The last section of the discussion is superfluous.

However, the final conclusion or conclusions of the work are missing.

 TDIs (Line 221) and TDI (line 222): Its meaning does not appear in the text.

Line 15-16: "Most trauma (395 DT, 77%) occurred in the 2–3-year range (153 DT, 30%)". This sentence of the abstract is confusing. What percentage of DTs occur between 2-3 years, 77 or 30%?

Line 52: Why do you write the abbreviation MIH if it is not used again?

Check bibliography format. There are some mistakes.

Figure 2: Andreasen's classification bibliographical reference is missing

Author Response

The method should be better described. It is indicated that 2 dentists review the cases. Are they calibrated? Have they established concordance between them? Please, explain it better.

we reworded the material and method section

Why are patients with systemic illnesses and/or syndromes excluded? In the discussion it is highlighted that children with special needs are a group of society with a high risk of suffering injuries. If the study had included these patients, a comparison could be made by groups

dental trauma in special needs was the topic of the same group of research in the same dental center (Bagattoni S, Sadotti A, D'Alessandro G, Piana G. Dental trauma in Italian children and adolescents with special health care needs. A cross-sectional retrospective study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2017 Mar;18(1):23-26.)

I consider the bibliography to be excessive and some of the citations do not have much to do with the work, which should focus on the epidemiology of trauma. In addition, there are very old bibliographical citations. There are many more recent works on this subject.The last section of the discussion is superfluous.

referente were reduced and the last section of discussion eliminated

TDIs (Line 221) and TDI (line 222): Its meaning does not appear in the text.

we changed in DT (dental trauma)

Line 15-16: "Most trauma (395 DT, 77%) occurred in the 2–3-year range (153 DT, 30%)". This sentence of the abstract is confusing. What percentage of DTs occur between 2-3 years, 77 or 30%?.

of course there was a mistake in the abstract section. the percentage is 30%. abstract was reworded

the final conclusion or conclusions of the work are missing.

conclusion section is not mandatory in this journal. however we added a brief conclusion

Figure 2: Andreasen's classification bibliographical reference is missing

reference number 8 was cited in material and methods 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The article entitled "Dental trauma epidemiology in primary dentition: a cross-sectional retrospective study" brings some useful information for the pediatric dental practitioners.

Here are some observations to the manuscript:

-in the Abstract section: please replace "our department" with the exact information of time and place

-please pay attention to the correct expression of the numbers with decimals in English (for example, at line 26: 22.7% instead of 22,7%)

-in the Results section: the expression of the numbers should be clearer, including those in brackets

-the title of figures and tables should begin with capital letter

-the title of tables should be placed before the table

-in the Discussion section: what does "TDIs" mean? Please explain the abbreviation in brackets the first time it appears in text

-in the References section: please follow the recommended style of the Journal; reference 33 is seen also at the end of reference 29.

Author Response

-in the Abstract section: please replace "our department" with the exact information of time and place DONE

-please pay attention to the correct expression of the numbers with decimals in English (for example, at line 26: 22.7% instead of 22,7%) DONE

-in the Results section: the expression of the numbers should be clearer, including those in brackets WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT DO YOU MEAN. WE CHECKED DECIMALS (. INSTEAD OF ,) AND WE REMOUVED THE SYMBOL % FROM TABLES

-the title of figures and tables should begin with capital letter DONE

-the title of tables should be placed before the table DONE

-in the Discussion section: what does "TDIs" mean? Please explain the abbreviation in brackets the first time it appears in text CHANGED IN DT (DENTAL TRAUMA)

-in the References section: please follow the recommended style of the Journal; reference 33 is seen also at the end of reference 29.

these references were eliminated