Evaluation of Tooth Movement Accuracy with the F22 Aligner System: A Retrospective Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled: "Evaluation of tooth movements accuracy with F22 Aligner system a retrospective study".

 

The authors should respond to the following points:

1) The authors should indicate in the abstract at which centre and/or institution the study was conducted and in which year.

2) In my opinion, the authors should remove the key word "Clear Aligner Therapy".

3) In the aim of the study, the authors should modify the following categorical statement: "Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of F22 Aligner system with respect to digitally planned movements in a large sample with mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusion, treated according to the clinical indications in the literature. Do the authors consider that a large sample of patients was analysed?

4) Why was only patients treated with 12-20 aligners considered?

5) The authors should improve the resolution of figures 5, 6 and 7.

6) The authors should review the bibliographical references; there are an excessive number of self-citations that are not justified.

Author Response

REBUTTAL LETTER

 

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review our manuscript. Below is a point-by-point reply to each comment.

The manuscript has been modified according to your suggestions. We hope that it is now suitable for publication.

 

 

Reviewer 1:

 

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled: "Evaluation of tooth movements accuracy with F22 Aligner system a retrospective study".

 

The authors should respond to the following points:

 

1) The authors should indicate in the abstract at which center and/or institution the study was conducted and in which year.

Thank You for your comment. This information has been added in the abstract.

 

2) In my opinion, the authors should remove the key word "Clear Aligner Therapy".

Thank You for your comment. "Clear Aligner Therapy" has been removed from the keywords.

 

3) In the aim of the study, the authors should modify the following categorical statement: "Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of F22 Aligner system with respect to digitally planned movements in a large sample with mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusion, treated according to the clinical indications in the literatur

 

e.” Do the authors consider that a large sample of patients was analyzed?

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this aspect. Authors considered a large number of patients (150), treated accordingly to the indications of literature (no torque movements, minor translational movements and so on). In other words, this is an approach evidence-based.

 

4) Why was only patients treated with 12-20 aligners considered?

Dear reviewer, we considered only 12-20 aligners per arch. Rarely F22 set-up exceeded 20 aligners.

 

5) The authors should improve the resolution of figures 5, 6 and 7.

Thank You for your comment. The resolution of figures 5,6 and 7 has been improved.

 

6) The authors should review the bibliographical references; there are an excessive number of self-citations that are not justified.

Dear reviewer, self-citations are justified by the fact that the F22 aligner system has been created and studied at the University of Ferrara. All tests were carried out at the orthodontic department of the University of Ferrara.

Self-citations are all included in the introduction to explain the mechanical and aesthetic properties of the aligner, also with reference to the reviewer's request 2.

 

Thanks for your peer-reviewed work.

We strengthen according to reviewer’s suggestion the paper.

We hope is now suitable for publication in your eminent journal.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

I have read the manuscript with interest and some questions raised. Enlisted please find my comments.

In the Introduction,

Briefly describe the characteristics of the F22 aligner in terms of fitting, esthetics, and material properties.

In the materials and methods,

Please illustrate the design of the grip points. Size, shape, and position relative to the tooth surface.

Are the grip points designed with the intention of placing active surfaces as used in the Invisalign system? Or does the shape of the grip point internal surface set on the aligner match perfectly with the shape of the grip point on the tooth surface?

How did you set the tooth axis (long axis, mesial-distal, labial-lingual)?

Have you measured the distance of tooth movement per aligner set every 2 degrees? Longer rooted teeth, such as canines, have a greater crown movement distance per aligner, which could cause unfit.

In the results,

In this study, grip points were selectively placed during greater tooth movements. This makes it difficult to verify the accuracy of tooth movement with and without grip points and cannot be used for comparison.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Contains several spelling errors.

Author Response

REBUTTAL LETTER

 

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review our manuscript. Below is a point-by-point reply to each comment.

The manuscript has been modified according to your suggestions. We hope that it is now suitable for publication.

 

 

Reviewer 2:

 

Dear Author(s),

 

I have read the manuscript with interest and some questions raised. Enlisted please find my comments.

 

In the Introduction, briefly describe the characteristics of the F22 aligner in terms of fitting, esthetics, and material properties.

Thank You for the comment, F22 aligner characteristics have been described in the introduction section. This is underlined in red font.

 

In the materials and methods: Please illustrate the design of the grip points. Size, shape, and position relative to the tooth surface.

Thank You for the comment. Grip points are rectangular-shaped in the posterior teeth with an average length of 3 mm, which may vary depending on the size of the tooth. On the other hand, triangular attachments are applied on teeth that have to be rotated, with the longer surface towards the opposite side of rotation. All attachments are placed in the center of the clinical crown.

No optimized attachments or force pairs are applied.

 

Are the grip points designed with the intention of placing active surfaces as used in the Invisalign system? Or does the shape of the grip point internal surface set on the aligner match perfectly with the shape of the grip point on the tooth surface?

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this aspect. The grip points matched perfectly with the inner surface of aligners.

 

How did you set the tooth axis (long axis, mesial-distal, labial-lingual)?

Thank You for the comment. Given the unnecessity of performing CBCTs, the long axes of the teeth were set by means of anatomical references on the clinical crown. The long axis passes through the FACC (facial axis clinical crown) and the center of rotation of the tooth, between apical one-third and middle-root one-third in single-rooted teeth, and 2-mm apical to the furcation in multirooted teeth, and the planned tooth movements were mainly coronals

 

Have you measured the distance of tooth movement per aligner set every 2 degrees? Longer rooted teeth, such as canines, have a greater crown movement distance per aligner, which could cause unfit.

Thank you for this consideration. No, it is not the aim of this study.

 

In the results: In this study, grip points were selectively placed during greater tooth movements. This makes it difficult to verify the accuracy of tooth movement with and without grip points and cannot be used for comparison.

Grip points are placed for major rotative correction as suggested by Simon et al. (2014). As a matter of fact, this is not a direct comparison. However, considering the major prescribed movement, grip points ensured the same accuracy for minor movement.

 

Thanks for your peer-reviewed work.

We strengthen according to reviewer’s suggestion the paper.

We hope is now suitable for publication in your eminent journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved their manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All points were properly revisited.