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.
After revisions, all reviewers agreed to publish the manuscript. I also reviewed the manuscript and found no obvious risks to publication. Therefore, I also approved the publication of this manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript is within the scope of the journal and really complete from different point of view. The introduction is well written, after the changes made by the Authors it is also very complete and describes well the information contained in the manuscript.
The Materials and Methods section is well written, complete and clear from several points of view. This type of article is still interesting in light of the low diffusion of this type of research.
The results are as well described as they were in the previous round of review.
I consider this manuscript suitable for publication.
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
None
The authors are requested to carefully revise the manuscript and answer the questions raised by the reviewers.
The paper is a literature review on the research advances in influences of NF-κB Signaling
on dental related inflammatory diseases.
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 is well written, complete and summary in its various aspects. The keywords are appropriate and complete.
I believe that the materials and methods section is not complete. I suggest including information on the inclusion and exclusion criteria used by the Authors, from which manuscripts the information reported in a schematic manner was taken.
Results are easy to understand and comprehensive. All the studied characteristics were reported in tables which are clear and concise.
VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS: are well represented, the methodology was of a high standard, and the different results were listed in a precise and high level manner, also considering the complexity of the study and the different variables examined.
In the Discussion:
• this section is complete and evaluates the outcome of different papers present in literature. The overall is comprehensive, concise and complete in its various aspects.
• Please add and debate limitations of this study.
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. Please check the copyright for the included figures.
English is clear and easy to understand.
Title:
1. To suggest include “narrative review/literature review” at the end of the title.
2. To remove “research advances” from the title – from the discussion, it discusses more on the inflammatory pathways of NFkappaB rather than research advances.
3. If want to be more specific, the title can be rephrased to: “The role of NFkappaB in the inflammatory processes related to dental caries, pulpitis, apical periodontitis, and periodontitis – a narrative review”
Abstract:
1. A little bit too detail, it should be a summary of the findings from the review paper, not extra information. Example: the abstract mentioned Wnt signaling pathway, however there were none in the body of the review paper discussing on Wnt.
Introduction:
1. Very detailed explanation on the role of NF-kappaB in inflammation.
2. However lacks literature review on specific role of NF-kappa B in dental related researches.
3. No obvious problem statement that justifies the conduct of the review.
4. The aim was also not clearly mentioned. Ie: role of NF-kappaB on dental caries, pulpitis, apical periodontitis, and periodontitis.
Methods:
1. Too brief
2. No mention of the study design. Is it a narrative/scoping/systematic review?
3. Was there any guideline used to conduct the review paper? SANRA? JBI? PRISMA?
4. No mention of inclusion or exclusion criteria (ie: only original article is included, or review papers as well)
5. What was the scope of the review?
6. Would be good to have a flowchart on how the articles searched online is being filtered/sieved.
7. Would be good to include the search terms used (including the Boolean phrases used for each database (can be placed as a table)
Results and discussion:
1. No mention on the number of articles found, excluded, and the reason for exclusion (except duplication and relevance)
2. Would be good to have a table outlining the summary of findings from the included articles. (which article covers dental caries, pulpitis, apical periodontitis, and periodontitis?)
3. The results mostly cover the role of NF-kappaB on the inflammation of tooth related tissues. However, it would be good to include literature on the future prospects of these findings, such as studies on manipulating NF-kappaB in the treatment of the mentioned diseases (caries, pulpitis, AP, periodontitis).
4. It can be suggested that the review be written more systematically.
5. There were a lot of inflammatory processes described in the discussion, would be nice to have illustration/s to summarize the role of NFkappaB on each disease mentioned.
Conclusion:
1. The conclusion emphasizes the possible role in manipulating NFkappaB in the treatment of dental diseases, however there were none in the discussion that covers any literature concerning the use of NFkappaB in the treatment of the said dental diseases. The conclusion would be good if those treatment modalities were to be discussed in the manuscript.
General comments:
1. Standardization of fonts, some words need to be italicised.
2. Please check the use of abbreviations (in abstract and in-text)
3. To improve the use of punctuation and formatting. To suggest author to send the manuscript for proofreading prior to submission of revision.
4. The flow of the manuscript appears to be like a more systematic review, however it is more of a narrative review.
5. To include some keywords after the abstract.
Specific comments:
1. Please refer to the manuscript document for more specific comments.
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.