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.
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. The article is now ready for publication.
Best regards
I think the article is now suitable for publication.
I think the article is now suitable for publication.
I think the article is now suitable for publication.
I think the article is now suitable for publication.
ok
ok
ok
In my opinion the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to this prestigious journal.
Please follow the reviewers instructions.
There is no requirement to cite any of the references suggested by the reviewers.
Best regards
Everything is correct and follows the recent indications in this regard.
Bibliography should be formatted respecting the journal’s requirements and no improper citations are evidenced.
Everything is correct and follows the recent indications in this regard.
• “Measurements were performed with Kodak Dental Imaging Software (Eastman Kodak, Rochester NY, USA) on DICOM files obtained from CBCT. PMT was measured from midpalatal of premolar and molar teeth on cross-sections.” I ask the authors to better explain how the measurements were standardized, a real critical point in this type of investigation.
excellent research and with interesting results.
The paper is a clinical research on the relationships with palatal vault anatomy and palatal mucosa thickness and palatal neurovascular bundle position evaluation by cone-beam computed tomography.
The Authors made a great work in terms of methodology and the paper sounds scientific and well written.
However, some improvements are mandatory before acceptance.
The abstract summarizes correctly and carefully what will be developed in the article, is precise and relevant, and divided into different categories that make it easily readable.
In the Introduction:
• “Other methods used for measuring PMT are the use of ultrasound or cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The difficulty of using ultrasound is that it is difficult to find probes in sizes suitable for oral use and equipment calibration is difficult (Eger, Muller & Heinecke, 1996).” It is also possible, remaining in the radiation free exams, to consider the possibility of studying this aspect with an MRI exam for dental use. Although the limitations are important, more and more evidence regarding the application of this technique can be found in the literature, even up to guided implant planning. and citing this article:
“In the context of implant surgery, magnetic resonance imaging allows for the detailed measurement of mucosal thickness and can aid in the planning of palatal tissue harvesting to obtain soft tissue augmentation” from “Reda R, Zanza A, Mazzoni A, et al. An Update of the Possible Applications of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Dentistry: A Literature Review. J Imaging. 2021 Apr 21;7(5):75. doi: 10.3390/jimaging7050075.”
• “Although CBCT is recommended for detailed examination of hard tissues in the maxillofacial complex rather than soft tissues, it has been reported that CBCT can also be used for imaging dentogingival soft tissues with studies conducted in last years (Scarfe, Farman & Sukovic, 2006; Song et al, 2008; Borges et al, 2015).” Not only that, recent evidence in the literature underlines how modern CBCT devices assisted by new software, allow to obtain extremely valid results also in the study of skin soft tissues, assisted by the superimposition of DICOM data with extraoral photos of the patient, both for complex implant rehabilitations -prosthetics that oer the 3D planning of orthodontic treatment, as underlined in this two article that I suggest to enrich the introduction from this point of view:
“Alhammadi MS, Al-Mashraqi AA, Alnami RH, et al. Accuracy and Reproducibility of Facial Measurements of Digital Photographs and Wrapped Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Photographs. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Apr 23;11(5):757. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11050757.”
“Perrotti G, Baccaglione G, Clauser T, et al. Total Face Approach (TFA) 3D Cephalometry and Superimposition in Orthognathic Surgery: Evaluation of the Vertical Dimensions in a Consecutive Series. Methods Protoc. 2021 May 18;4(2):36. doi: 10.3390/mps4020036.”
In Materials and Methods section:
• “Measurements were performed with Kodak Dental Imaging Software (Eastman Kodak, Rochester NY, USA) on DICOM files obtained from CBCT. PMT was measured from midpalatal of premolar and molar teeth on cross-sections.” I ask the authors to better explain how the measurements were standardized, a real critical point in this type of investigation.
Results are easy to understand and comprehensive. All the studied characteristics were reported in tables which are clear and concise.
In the Discussion:
• “Differences between epithelium, fat and connective tissue cannot be seen in CBCT images.” to return to the previous evaluation, instead these characteristics can be visualized on the MRI.
The overall is comprehensive, concise and complete in its various aspects.
Conclusions are concise and clear.
Bibliography should be formatted respecting the journal’s requirements and no improper citations are evidenced.
Figures and labels are clear and easy to comprehend.
English is clear and easy to understand.
-
1. Basic Reporting Ѵ
2. Experimental design Ѵ
3. Validity of the findings Ѵ
4. General comments
The Authors made a great work in terms of methodology and the paper sounds scientific and well written.
However, some improvements are mandatory before acceptance.
References must be reformatted and coul be improved in order to complete the background of the research.
ok
ok
ALL COMMENTS ARE LISTED IN THE ATTACCHED PDF FILE
Plagiarism has been checked and a low acceptable level was detected.
References must be formatted according to the journal’s guidelines
Some minor spell checks are required.
The research has been scientifically conducted and the manuscript has been well written. However, some improvements are mandatory before acceptance.
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.