Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 23rd, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 13th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 12th, 2022 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on May 25th, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 25th, 2022.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· May 25, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,

Congratulations. Your manuscript is ready for acceptance. Please double-check that all are in accordance with the format of the journal such as citations, references and others. Thank you for conducting and submitting this research, which will benefit the mankind. Best wishes

Version 0.2

· May 22, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors,

Thank you so much for the revision which was well accepted by the reviewer. The manuscript just needs some minor revisions. Please address all the comments by the reviewer and resubmit as soon as possible.

Best wishes

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

..

Experimental design

..

Validity of the findings

..

Additional comments

Dear authors
Thank you for the modifications, the paper seems publishable to me. Please add the explanation to your choice of Perio classification in the manuscript (that the study design was done according to another study, so that the readers could understand that you followed another paper. Also i couldn't find in the references the Derks et al. 2016 you are refering to, so please add it

Best Regards

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Apr 13, 2022 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Dr. Wada,

Thank you for your submission to PeerJ.

I congratulate you and the team on this effort. It is an important topic, which warrants investigation. Providing keratinized mucosa around dental implants is still a controversial topic. Therefore more evidence is needed. Please do all the necessary corrections as per the reviewers' comments and suggestions. Best wishes

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]

[# 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 copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

Please see the additional comments

Additional comments

The article addresses a very important topic in Periodontology?Oral implantology that is the need of keratinized tissues around implants to maintain mucosal health.
This restrospective study assessed only the radiographical bone loss around implants in regards to the amount of keratinized tissues. The paper needs improvement especially in the interpretation of the results and the discussion. Please find below my suggestions and questions:
Line 40: Please correct word: “Background”
Abstract: abbreviations are used without the whole words the first time (KMW etc.)
Line 45: Please rephrase, it seems inaccurate to say that this study aims to clarify the
importance of KMW as it does not give any explanation regarding this role, the aim of this study is to assess the correlation between bone loss and the amount of keratinized tissue etc.
Line 60-63:Abstract’s conclusion: ‘the importance of keratinized mucosa in maintaining the health of peri-implant tissues’: The results show a reduction in Peri-implant bone loss but no indicators about peri-implant health were assessed so please modify the conclusion by limiting it to bone loss
Line 70: is a well-established method to rehabilitate
Line 73-75 : However, peri-implantitis, a complication, involves the loss of surrounding tissue accompanied by an inflammatory reaction, culminating in implant removal in severe cases : Very brief and expeditive introduction to peri-implant (PI) disease. Please explain shortly the evolution from PI health to PI mucositis then to Peri-implantitis and the plaque-associated type of these disease, in order to link it to oral hygiene performance and the role of keratinized tissues in it
Line 96: contralateral side : please replace contralateral side by the anatomical term : ‘oral’ or’ Palatal/Lingual’
Line 115 : where are the 6 dental office situated, also in Japan?
Line 134: Please explain the choice of this definition of Periodontitis and why not to adopt the current international classification's definition?
Line 150: KMW was defined as the minimum: not clear what minimum means here
Line 152: 'APF was judged necessary when the KMW was between 1 mm and 2 mm, and FGG was judged 153 necessary when the KMW was less than 1 mm': These criteria were the same followed during 19 years in 8 centers? Or just at the University centers?
Line 214: please rephrase as this study didn’t “clarify” the importance of keratinized tissue but showed in a retrospective manner a reduction of Bone loss correlated with keratinized tissues
Table1: No analysis was done for each confounder to determine if the difference between each group is significant? For instance, did you see if the higher plaque score of group C was statistically significant in comparaison to A and B.

The discussion needs substantial modifications, especially related to the obtained results: Is the bone loss between Group A and B significant? The values of bone loss should be compared to other described studies in the discussion especially between (an emphasis on the comparison of group B and C is important as these two groups are more comparable than the group A which have only 66 patients, and less KMW than the group B). The Mean endpoint assessment (functional time) between the groups is high especially between group A and C and this should be discussed and potentially compared to other results.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

1. It is better if you can add keywords (after the abstract) for this paper.
2. Please italic the symbol 'P' in P-value

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

1. Please re-check the total number in group A (line 193) because it is stated differently in the table provided.
2. Please re-structured tables 1 and 2 so that you can have a better result presentation

Additional comments

1. See the manuscript for the further correction
2. Little bit of grammatical errors

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

The title was relevant and appropriate and supported the study

Introduction or background covered the relevant aspects related to the study done

Minimal errors and typing mistakes in the text need to be clarified and corrected respectively. Please refer to the attached file and please make all paragraphs in the text in the “justified form”

Need some corrections and a bit of rearrangement in tables and figure. Please refer to the attached file

Experimental design

Objectives were clearly stated and the methodology was well described

Results were sufficient to reach a clear conclusion

Validity of the findings

Well written discussion and conclusion

Be careful with the references in the text. Should follow the standard guideline

References range until 2021 which were adequate and up to date

Additional comments

The manuscript is good and easy to understand and the contents are well presented

Several authors advocate that a 5-year follow-up is still short for more reliable information for survival and complication rates (Jung et al., 2008). A more recent systematic review has reported that it has been recommended to have a study with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up as stated in the Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Periodontology (Needleman et al., 2012)

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

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.