Validation Analysis of Panoramic Dental Application (PDApp) Software as a Tool for Predicting Third Molar Eruption Based on Panoramic Radiograph Images

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

*for such study you need power analysis and many more cases

*for this type of prediction model you need images at different moments in time of eruption (range 10 years -21 years) to make eruption possible 

*you need to distinguish partial from full eruption and impaction

*there need to be M3 studies with large databases mentioned

*there are already ai solutions which are not cited and do similar things

1: Vranckx e al PROPHYLACTIC VS. SYMPTOMATIC THIRD

MOLAR REMOVAL: EFFECTS ON PATIENT POSTOPERATIVE MORBIDITY. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2021 Sep;21(3):101582. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101582. Epub 2021 Apr28. PMID: 34479679.

on 16000 teeth

2: Vranckx et al. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Driven Molar Angulation

Measurements to Predict Third Molar Eruption on Panoramic Radiographs. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 May 25;17(10):3716. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103716.

should be obligatory mentioned as it does the same as the present study

Author Response

Please see the attacment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for conducting the present research and for submitting it to the Applied Sciences. Here go my comments.

 

I recommend the authors not to use abbreviations on the title. Plus, I recommend also to add the study design to it.

 

The abstract sentence “The software, for Windows and Linux, can be downloaded from https://citius.usc.es/transferencia/software for research purposes” looks free sponsor and should be removed from the Abstract.

 

The keywords should be placed by alphabetic order.

 

The aim sentence (last paragraph of the Introduction) should be completely reformulated. What is the objective of this study anyway? Just to talk about the software? The way it is put it looks like a free sponsorship. Please notice that you do not need to mention here that you are going to present a Discussion and Conclusions… since all scientific manuscript do it. Please mention clearly what are the goals of the present investigation.

 

Please combine “Material” and “Methods” in the same “Materials and Methods” heading.

 

How were the patients selected? What was the sampling method?

 

Why were the OPG performed in the first place? Not with the purposes of the present study, I guess.

 

What were the setting of the OPG machine?

 

The Methods spend a half of the text describing the software it self on characteristics that are not the ones needed/used in this study. Please review the Methods an clean all parts that are not related to the Methods applied in this investigation.

 

Results section should be separated from the Discussion section

 

The authors say the software is precise… how can they report that if it was not compared to a gold standard. I believe a diagnostic test study design would be much more relevant that this debate.

 

The Discussion lack on study strength, limitations and generalizations debate

 

The authors should review the reference list. Many references are not in accordance to the authors guidelines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Very interesting work on the use of software in the predictability of the need to extract included eighths in adult patients. Topic of sure interest in the scientific literature with some criticisms reported below: -Remove the word validate from the abstract section because this aspect requires a series of analyzes not performed in the study. -in the abstract section insert some numerical results; it is, in fact, too discursive -Check that all keywords are pubmed mESH terms - in the introduction section some considerations are missing between the possible connection between the need for orthodontic treatment and the indication for the surgical extraction of the third molars. In this regard, I ask you to include the following scientific work in the reference section: Giuca MR, Pasini M, Drago S, Del Corso L, Vanni A, Carli E, Manni A. Influence of Vertical Facial Growth Pattern on Herbst Appliance Effects in Prepubertal Patients: A Retrospective Controlled Study. Int J Dent. 2020 Jan 11;2020:1018793. doi:10.1155/2020/1018793. PMID: 32399031; PMC ID: PMC7201793. .lines47-69 This part appears too long and should either be summarized considerably or moved to the discussion section - a section on the limitations of the study is missing - moreover, some considerations are missing about the possible link between included eighths and the distribution of loads and forces on the adjacent teeth, both from a direct point of view and from a growth and development point of view. I ask, in this regard, to add the following reference: Chieruzzi M, Rallini M, Pagano S, Eramo S, D'Errico P, Torre L, Kenny JM. Mechanical effect of static loading on endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced posts. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2014 Feb;102(2):384-94. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33017. Epub 2013 Sep 2. PMID: 24000235.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript significantly improved

Native linguistic revision recommended

Author Response

Please see attachment documents

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors. I have no more comments.

Author Response

We wish to thank to the reviewer