All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for making the requested changes and your patience with the reviewing process.
Please address the few remaining revisions suggested by the reviewers and return the manuscript to us. Thank you for re-submitting your paper.
Line 20 The aim of this study was to study……Two “studies” are used together, it is recommended to replace words.
no comments
no comments
1.Line 27 Statistical methods do not need to be included in the abstract.
2. It is recommended to indicate each reference surface and how to measure the parameters (PH, FLT, IDD…) in figure.
I have made correction to the manuscript and would like to send it as a PDF. Changes are made in red.
Design is reasonable. Other methodologies have been used in the past for these determinations
Statistical analysis is acceptable. A larger sampling (which the authors stated is planned) will give an improved power analysis.
Changes in syntax have improved readability for an international audience. Further changes have been done by the reviewer. These include reduction of compound sentences and tenses.
Although all three reviewers believe that the manuscript is a valuable addition to the literature, they also had various concerns. Two of the reviewers expressed a concern that the use of CBCT for the evaluation of the gingival papilla (rather than conventional techniques) is not justified sufficiently. When you resubmit the manuscript please be sure that you have addressed these and all of the other comments of the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Yang’s paper explored some morphological parameters, including PH, FLT and IDD in maxillary anterior teeth by CBCT and provided anatomical data for aesthetic treatments. Its English expression was fluent.
Some minor points needed to be improved:
There were some researches concerning the direct measurement for PH and papillary width in mouth, such as “Analysis of the gingival biotype based on the measurement of the dentopapillary complex”, “The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva”…….. Direct measurement in mouth is simple and noninvasive. What is the necessity and significance of the measurement using CBCT?
To measure PH, how to ensure the sagittal plane of each measurement was fixed? Was the sagittal plane perpendicular to the lip surface of the teeth or the line connecting center point of two adjacent root canals? For IDD measurement, there was also a same question.
no comment
Including samples in this experiment were young Chinese population. Are there any differences in PH, FLT and IDD in samples of different races and ages? It might be better to modify the title as “………in Young Chinese Populations”.
The quality of language is lacking for publication throughout. Both tenses and verbiage need improvement to make the text acceptable.
ie Line 1-20-Incomplete sentence
Line 25-Height of Papilla (PH)- simplified Papillae Height (PH)-correct tense
Line 44-45-According...present completely-improved by saying totally present or completely present
Line 51-The sentence should read- There is sparse "evidence" rather than investigation
Line 59-Contact "statuses"-no such word exists-perhaps "types" would have sufficed
Literature references are adequate- reference to Lyndon Cooper and his concepts on implants should have been included
Figures and tables adequate
Hypothesis and conclusions reasonable
The major concern is about the construction of the article. It confuses the topic rather than giving it clarification. The authors have done their due diligence in their investigation. They have failed to convey their findings in a cogent manner. A rewrite with the help of an editor with knowledge of the Gunning FOG index is in order. This will make the article readable and salient.
Well defined-see previous notes
Valid findings-concern should be discussed with regard to clinical relevance. Data is complete and statistically significant as noted. Do these findings really matter in the workplace at this time? Introspection is needed.
Marked improvement is necessary in writing to make this manuscript acceptable. The basic premise is reasonable. It must be readable.
1) The authors have made a commendable effort in writing a well referenced manuscript.
2) The language used in the article is clear and understandable.
1) In the present study the authors have utilized CBCT for assessing various gingival parameters for the presence and dimension of interdental papilla. However, in the segment of introduction (line no. 51-52) authors have noted "there is a sparse investigation on the relationship between the presence and the three-dimensional size of the gingival architecture (Chow et al., 2010)." this may not be completely rational, since there are several studies with conventional techniques that have tried to evaluate the same. Therefore it is suggested that the authors rephrase the given line.
2) CBCT is essentially related to the diagnosis of hard tissues. A precise and detailed justification for its usage, advantages over conventional techniques, drawbacks and clinical applicability in gingival analysis of the present study should be provided either in the segment of introduction or in the discussion.
3) In the clinical examination (Line no 80-83) the criteria for determining the presence or absence of papilla should have been more definitive. Authors would have benefited by utilizing the classification systems given by Norland and Tarnow or the Papilla Presence Index by Cardaropoli etc.
4) The CBCT examination is sufficiently detailed.
5) the measurement criteria of IDD (Line no 118-119) requires more description and clarity.
The conclusion drawn in the study regarding tooth contact and presence of IP require more explanation.
The authors are appreciated for a well conducted study. Though unrelated to the main manuscript, it would have been appreciated if an English translated copy of consent and IRB would have been provided.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.