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.
Congratulations I am pleased to accept the revised version
Clear, the author already improves. The background, figures and tables.
Methods already improves as suggest, sufficient detail and information
conclusions are well stated, already improved.
-
Please address all the comments raised by the esteemed reviewers
- In general, Background of this manuscript is too long.
- The background should help the reader understand why the study is important.
- The authors should explain why the study is being carried out with clear rationale.
- The authors should explain the differ of this study from other work
The authors wrote: The primary objective of this review was to comprehensively assess the existing literature on the application of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) as a treatment modality for enamel caries.
In background we could not find the reason why the authors focused the study only for enamel caries.
1. In general, this parts is too long, it is better to shorten the explanation of reference used
2. It is better to explain the mechanism of action of SDF in the beginning of this part
3. The authors just wrote what other authors have written. The authors should interpreting, critiquing and analysing their ideas
Figure 1: The Figure is confusing.
- In the top of Figure 1: “SILVER DIAMINE FLUORIDE”
Why? This diagram is about the effect of fluoride, silver nitrate and silver diamine, not just talking about SDF.
- The effect of fluoride, silver nitrate and silver diamine is not clear in that diagram.
- Explanation of diagram C: not complete. Please check
-
BASIC REPORTING:
Rationale and Background:
Enamel carious lesions represent a significant dental health concern globally, particularly among pediatric populations. The article under review delves into the utilization of Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) as a promising intervention for treating initial enamel caries. However, the background section lacks comprehensive coverage on the prevalence of enamel carious lesions and the prevailing standard of care.
A detailed exploration of the prevalence of enamel carious lesions is paramount for contextualizing the importance of interventions such as SDF. By providing a robust background, the article can underscore the urgency of addressing enamel caries and highlight the need for effective treatment modalities. Additionally, elucidating the current standard of care for enamel carious lesions would offer readers valuable insights into existing treatment paradigms and pave the way for evaluating the potential benefits of SDF within this context.
Literature Gap:
While the article hints at the potential benefits of SDF for caries-affected tooth structure, it fails to explicitly articulate how this study contributes to the broader body of literature on SDF and caries treatment.
The existing literature on SDF's efficacy in managing enamel carious lesions is extensive, encompassing studies that delve into its mechanisms of action, clinical outcomes, and patient acceptability. Identifying the specific gap that the current study addresses within this extensive literature is essential for establishing its relevance and significance. By articulating how the study builds upon prior research, the article can position itself within the broader discourse on SDF and enamel caries treatment. This not only enhances the academic rigor of the study but also provides readers with a clearer understanding of its unique contributions to the field and the potential impact on clinical practice.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY:
Search Strategy:
The article lacks comprehensive details regarding the search strategy employed to identify relevant articles. While it briefly mentions the databases utilized and the search terms employed, a more thorough and elaborate methodology is necessary to ensure transparency and reproducibility in the review process.
A robust search strategy is fundamental to conducting a comprehensive literature review, as it determines the breadth and depth of the evidence base examined. By detailing the databases searched, the specific search terms employed, and the inclusion criteria applied, the article can provide readers with insights into the rigor and comprehensiveness of the review process. Furthermore, specifying the time frame covered by the search ensures that the review encompasses relevant studies published within a defined period, thus minimizing the risk of overlooking pertinent literature. Transparency in the search strategy enhances the reproducibility of the review and enables readers to critically evaluate the comprehensiveness of the evidence synthesis.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
Critical Analysis:
The article discusses various aspects of SDF use, including its effect on composite bond strength and color stability. However, it would benefit from a more critical analysis of the studies cited, discussing their strengths, limitations, and the quality of evidence they provide.
A critical appraisal of the literature is essential for discerning the robustness and applicability of the evidence presented. By critically evaluating the included studies, including their methodological rigor, potential biases, and relevance to the research question, the article can offer readers insights into the strengths and limitations of the existing evidence base. Moreover, discussing the quality of evidence provided by each study enhances the transparency and objectivity of the review process. Engaging in a critical analysis fosters a nuanced understanding of the literature and enables readers to make informed interpretations of the findings presented.
Synthesis:
The article could benefit from a synthesis of the findings from the different studies reviewed, identifying patterns, discrepancies, or gaps in the literature.
Synthesizing the evidence from diverse studies facilitates the identification of overarching themes, trends, or inconsistencies in the literature. By systematically integrating and analyzing the findings across studies, the article can offer readers a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on SDF use for enamel carious lesions. Furthermore, synthesizing the evidence enables the identification of gaps or areas requiring further research, thereby informing future directions in the field. A well-executed synthesis enhances the coherence and relevance of the review, guiding readers toward a deeper understanding of the topic and its implications for clinical practice and research.
CONCLUSIONS:
Clinical Implications:
The article suggests that using SDF may require further preventive measures such as sealing the fissure or restoration with glass ionomer or resin composite. Discussing the practical implications of these findings for dental practitioners would be beneficial.
Translating research findings into actionable insights for clinical practice is essential for bridging the gap between research and application. By discussing the practical implications of SDF use, including considerations for adjunctive preventive measures, the article can provide guidance to dental practitioners in optimizing patient care strategies. Furthermore, addressing potential challenges or considerations associated with implementing SDF treatment in clinical practice, such as patient acceptance, cost-effectiveness, and long-term outcomes, enhances the relevance and applicability of the study.
Limitations:
The article does not discuss any limitations of the study. Acknowledging potential limitations, such as the quality of the studies included in the review or potential biases, would enhance the credibility of the conclusions.
Transparent acknowledgment of study limitations is essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of research findings. By identifying and discussing potential limitations, such as methodological constraints, sample biases, or data limitations, the article demonstrates a commitment to scientific rigor and intellectual honesty. Moreover, addressing study limitations provides context for interpreting the findings and underscores the need for cautious interpretation and further research to confirm or refute the observed outcomes.
Future Directions:
The article concludes by suggesting that further clinical investigation is needed to explore the long-term impacts of adding KI or GSH to SDF. Expanding on potential avenues for this future research would be helpful.
Articulating future research directions is crucial for guiding the trajectory of scientific inquiry and fostering advancements in the field. By outlining specific areas for future investigation, such as the long-term effects of adjunctive compounds in SDF treatment, the article can inspire researchers to pursue novel avenues of inquiry and address remaining knowledge gaps. Furthermore, elaborating on the potential implications of future research findings for clinical practice and patient care underscores the relevance and significance of ongoing scientific endeavors in the field of dental caries management
In summary, the article shows promise in advancing our understanding of SDF application for enamel carious lesions. Addressing the highlighted weaknesses and implementing the suggested improvements will enhance its quality.
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.