Accuracy of a Method to Monitor Root Position Using a 3D Digital Crown/Root Model during Orthodontic Treatments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This reviewer recommends this paper to publication. Paper needs minor grammar review.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our manuscript. 

We have addressed the typos you have kindly pointed out in our revised manuscript. Further, we have also undated the materials and methods section to specify that all included patients did not have any disease or on medications that could affect bone metabolism. 

We will definitely include larger groups of patients with more complex treatment in the future.

Thanks again for your review.

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

It was a pleasure to read this study about this new method for root position monitoring using 3D digital crown/root model during orthodontic treatments.

I have a few recommendations:

-line 20,21,23,30: typing error at treat-ments, Uni-versity, meth-od, dis-tance

-material and method: the inclusion and exclusion criteria must be clear written. All the patients was in a good health? Bone diseases? Were they on medication that can affect the bone metabolism?

-it was interesting to see the bone remodelation  and the correlation with the root movements 

In the future, this study should consider including larger group of patients. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our manuscript.

We have addressed the typos you have kindly pointed out in our revised manuscript. Further, we have also undated the materials and methods section to specify that all included patients did not have any disease or on medications that could affect bone metabolism.

We will definitely include larger groups of patients with more complex treatment in the future.

Thanks again for your review.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

I want to congratulate you on the study and the paper.

I saw a few wording mistakes especially in the abstract. Please correct them.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your review and your compliment for our manuscript.

 

We have corrected the typos in the abstract. 

 

Thanks again.

 

sincerely,

authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,
This is an interesting manuscript trying to assess the accuracy of a method of predicting post-movement root position during orthodontic treatment, using a 3D digital crown/root model. 
The topic is certainly of interest for the orthodontists, for the promising potential of predict root movements without the need for a second CBCT, but the method could be applied in the future also to other field of dentistry with interesting consequences.

However, in order to increase the value of this well-conducted article, some modifies are needed:

Abstract should be spell-checked for interruptions in different words. In addition, according to the journal guidelines, it should be a total of about 200 words maximum. Then, I suggest to reduce a little 

 

A larger introduction of the importance of CBCT in diagnose and treatment also in other field of dentistry is suggested. Several studies could be cited about that: 

• Pellegrino G, et al. Three- Dimensional Radiographic Evaluation of the Malar Bone Engagement Available for Ideal Zygomatic Implant Placement. Methods Protoc. 2020 Jul 22;3(3):52. doi:10.3390/mps3030052
• Patel S, et al. Cone beam computed tomography in Endodontics - a review of the literature. Int Endod J. 2019 Aug;52(8):1138-1152. doi: 10.1111/iej.13115. 

In materials and methods, please specify the methods of obtaining the dental arches from the patients. It seems that the models of the dental arches were scanned with an extra oral scanner. However, no clear explanation of the type of models scanned (gypsum, 3D printed or milled models) and of the type of dental impressions taken in the patients (conventional or digital impression - conventional with what type of material) is evident. I suggest to add those parts. Consider that each single phase of the protocol applied may affect the results. 

 

I kindly suggest to go through the limits of the study. Besides the described limits, the sample used for this study can be considered relatively small. Furthermore, the best-fit superimposition method (which I suppose you utilised - please declare it), always highlights little deviations between the objects superimposed; also this could affect the final results both for the fabrication of 3D digital crown/root models and for the method to predict the post-treatment root position.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your review of our manuscript. 

To facilitate your review of our revisions, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments 

1. Abstract should be spell-checked for interruptions in different words. In addition, according to the journal guidelines, it should be a total of about 200 words maximum. Then, I suggest to reduce a little. --> We have corrected the typos in the abstract and reduced the text to less than 200 words.
2. A larger introduction of the importance of CBCT in diagnose and treatment also in other field of dentistry is suggested. --> We have expanded the introduction section on CBCT and cited the two papers you have suggested. Thank you for the advice.
3. In materials and methods, please specify the methods of obtaining the dental arches from the patients. It seems that the models of the dental arches were scanned with an extra oral scanner. However, no clear explanation of the type of models scanned (gypsum, 3D printed or milled models) and of the type of dental impressions taken in the patients (conventional or digital impression - conventional with what type of material) is evident. I suggest to add those parts. Consider that each single phase of the protocol applied may affect the results.  --> We have revised the M&M section to better explain the detail steps. In brief, conventional impressions were obtained with alginate and subsequently poured in high strengh dental stone. The stone casts were scanned with an extraoral scanner to digitization. 
4. I kindly suggest to go through the limits of the study. Besides the described limits, the sample used for this study can be considered relatively small. Furthermore, the best-fit superimposition method (which I suppose you utilised - please declare it), always highlights little deviations between the objects superimposed; also this could affect the final results both for the fabrication of 3D digital crown/root models and for the method to predict the post-treatment root position. --> The small sample sizes and the relatively uncomplicated cases chosen are indeed important limitations of the current study. In the future, we plan on including larger sample sizes and also more complex cases. In terms of the superimposition method, we actually performed the superimposition based on as many corresponding points as possible of the crowns. We think this method will help to reduce errors in superimposition and better represent the root movement. 

Thank you again for your review and wonderful suggestions.

Sincerely,

authors