Evaluation of Alterations That May Occur on Root Surfaces after Root Planing Procedures with a Scanning Electron Microscope
Léa Assed Bezerra Da Silva
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevision of the Manuscript applsci-2924538 entitled ” Evaluation of Alterations That May Occur on Root Surface After Root Planing Procedure by Scanning Electron Microscope”.
This manuscript should not be accepted for publication. Please, find below my comments:
- The manuscript would benefit from a revision of the English language by a native speaker with experience in scientific writing and editing or a professional service.
- References must be updated. There is an exemple of reference that should be included: Analysing root roughness and smear layer relationship by comparing contemporary dental curettes with conventional dental curettes: a randomised controlled trial. Riaz S, Ahmed S, Shabbir S, Khan ZR, Zaidi SJA, Naeem MM, Farooqui WA. BMC Oral Health. 2022 Jun 17;22(1):237.
- Abstract: The authors should include some methodological details, as follows: how the analysis was performed (descriptive-qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative?); which parameters were evaluated; how the results were expressed; and statistical tests used.
- Abstract: A brief conclusion needs to be added.
- Introduction (last paragraph): The authors should include the ultrasonic scaler in the aim of the study.
- Methods: Was a sample calculation performed?
- Methods: Why were the curettes not evaluated without the prior use of ultrasound?
- Methods (Experimental design): The authors should describe more methodological details, as follows: how each technique was perfomed; how the applications of the different instruments were standardized; which surfaces were treated; and who performed the procedures.
- Methods (SEM analysis): Is there a reference to support the used roughness, loss of tooth substance and dentin tubule exposure indexes?
- Results: In general, the figures 3 to 7 do not show clearly the microscopic alterations described in the text for each group.
- Discussion: The authors should include a final paragraph, highlighting the clinical relevance/implication of the findings of the study.
- Conclusion: The last sentence is not suitable for the conclusion.
Comments on the Quality of English Language- The manuscript would benefit from a revision of the English language by a native speaker with experience in scientific writing and editing or a professional service.
Author Response
Responses to the review report are in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper by İğrek and Çekici is interesting and informative. However, some major corrections are required before its acceptance.
Some suggestions are reported below:
The authors should add keywords.
The overall text must be formatted in accordance with the Instructions for the authors. As a simple example, the references must be in square brackets []. Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form. This version of the manuscript looks more like a draft.
References are lacking all over the text. More references have to be added, especially from the last 5 years.
The number of teeth per group is not equally divided. The control group is too small for sufficient statistical analysis.
Figure 2 does not present new information. Instead, a figure that represents the methodology step by step can be more valuable and informative.
Lines 203 (There are also studies reporting that the loss of tooth substance is 203 not only dependent on the number of applications, but also varies according to the shape 204 of the tool and the condition of the root surface 13.) and lines 213 (Studies comparing ultrasonic instruments and Gracey curettes report conflicting 213 results 15.) – which are these studies?
The “Discussion” section should contain the authors’ critical analysis of the topic – current knowledge, limitations, and suggestions for further research.
The “Conclusion” section looks more like a part of the “Discussion”. Therefore, it must be strongly improved and extended, and some key findings, conclusions, and suggestions for future research should be added.
The reference numbers have to be formatted consistently in accordance with the journal guidelines.
The manuscript has to be reorganized and extended and cannot be accepted in this version.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript is readable but some corrections are necessary.
Author Response
Responses to the review report are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevision of the Manuscript applsci-2924538 R1 entitled ” Evaluation of Alterations That May Occur on Root Surface After Root Planing Procedure by Scanning Electron Microscope”.
Although the authors have attempted to answer most of the questions, the manuscript is not suitable for publication. Please, find below my comments:
- The manuscript would benefit from a revision of the English language by a native speaker with experience in scientific and editing or a professional service. A more scientific structure and writing should be used. A certificate of English editing/revision must be sent.
- Methods (Sample size calculation): This information should be presented before the item “Specimen Preparation”. Also, the authors should cite the references used for the exemplary studies.
- Table 1: The words “subjects” and “participants” should be replaced by “samples” or “specimens”.
Results: The numbering of the figures is not correct.
- Table 3: The word “maximum” is written wrong.
- Table 3: Shouldn't the maximum value for the group 4 be 2?
- Results (Figures 2, 3 and 4): From my point of view, it is not clear if the “scratch marks” are cracks of the teeth or microscopic alterations caused by procedures. These sinals are present in most of images.
- Results (Evaluation of the Treatment Duration): The word “scores” is not suitable. Please, replace it.
Comments on the Quality of English Language- The manuscript would benefit from a revision of the English language by a native speaker with experience in scientific and editing or a professional service. A more scientific structure and writing should be used. A certificate of English editing/revision must be sent.
Author Response
Responses to the review report are included in the attached file.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript still needs some revisions.
The description of the instruments (lines 94 - 98) should be presented in full sentences. It is the same for lines 134-143 - it is better either to use full sentences or to present this information as a table or a figure.
The conclusion is not just a summary of the results but the whole manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript requires further formatting and English editing to meet the demands of a qualitative research paper. As a simple example, you should not start a sentence with a number (e.g. lines 85 and 89).
Author Response
Responses to the review report are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevision of the Manuscript applsci-2924538 R3 entitled ” Evaluation of Alterations That May Occur on Root Surface After Root Planing Procedures by Scanning Electron Microscope”.
The authors have attempted to answer most of the questions. Then, the manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revision. Please, find below my comments:
- Table 1: The words “subjects” should be replaced by “samples” in the Table 1 (number of subjects).
- Cite figure 2 in the text.
- Reference list: Check references (volume of journals in bold).
Author Response
The reply to the editor is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
