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,
I am writing to express our sincere gratitude for your submission of the critically revised work. After a thorough review process, we are delighted to inform you that your submission has been accepted for publication in PeerJ. At least two peer reviewers have provided positive evaluations of your work, and we believe it is a valuable contribution to the field.
Our in-house team may reach out to you with any typesetting-related questions. Please do not hesitate to address any concerns or queries you may have.
Once again, thank you for choosing PeerJ as the platform to share your research. We look forward to working with you to ensure the successful publication of your work.
Best regards,
Dr. Nagendran Tharmalingam
Academic Editor
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Seems good for publication!
Ok
Ok
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your revised work with us. We received reports from peers and reviewer 2 recommended a further revision. Please respond to the reviewer 2 carefully with point-by-point responses. Please don't hesitate to contact us if any issues.
Kindly,
Dr. Nagendran Tharmalingam
Handling Editor.
Line 36: Candida albicans has again been referred as bacteria
Line 41: antibacterial should be changed to antimicrobial in view of inclusion of Candida.
Line 55: same concern. Repeatedly antibacterial is used as opposed to antimicrobial even in figure legends.
Line 133 to 134: The flow of writing is not obvious shifting the focus directly from CA to alginate impressions without any connecting line.
Line 354: Reference to previous study is needed.
Line 373-8: Repetition of the results diluting the focus of the discussion part, same is the concern at many other pieces of discussion
Line 379-84: Doesn't fit in discussion, seem more relevant as introduction. Overall, the discussion need to be more precise and less elaborative.
The study should include its limitation as a part of the text.
NA
Please provide all the raw data files related to these experiments.
NA
No comment
No comment
No comment
Satisfactory with the corrections made. Article can be accepted for the publication.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your revised work. We received reports from peer reviewers, who mentioned that the work needs outstanding significant modifications. Please go through the reports, notably Reviewer 4 and 5 and respond point-by-point.
Thank you.
Best wishes.
Dr. Nagendran Tharmalingam.
[# 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/ #]
The study seem to have improved with suggestions incorporated from all the reviewers. There are few minor changes reported below:
1. Follow the guidelines for scientific writing, for eg. in vitro (should be italicized), spacing between numeral and degree Celsius, etc.
2. Table 1 is just repetition of Figure 1.
NA
NA
NA
Please consider reducing repetition of word "with" in sentences 42-46 for improved readability
Ambiguous Sample Size Reporting:
Sample size inconsistencies across experimental procedures raise concerns about the study's reliability and reproducibility, necessitating clearer reporting.
Lack of Methodological Clarity:
Insufficient details on experimental protocols undermine the study's reproducibility and interpretation, calling for clearer and simpler descriptions of the methodology.
Recommendations:
Ensure consistent and clear sample size reporting.
Provide detailed methodology descriptions.
Missing Microbial Reduction Data:
The article fails to provide the percentage reduction of microorganisms post-CA application, hindering the assessment of its effectiveness in controlling microbial growth.
Inadequate Sample Size Reporting in Results:
The results section lacks explicit sample size reporting, impacting result interpretation and statistical significance assessment.
Recommendations:
Include quantitative microbial reduction data.
Explicitly state sample sizes in results for clarity.
Revisions are inadequate, and several major points raised by multiple reviewers still stand.
NA
NA
NA
Jiang et al. performed an in vitro study to evaluate the potential of chlorogenic acid (CA) as a disinfectant for alginate materials. For this, the effects of different concentrations of CA were analyzed in relation to alginate physical properties and antimicrobial activity against E. coli, S. aureus, C. albicans and S. pneumoniae. Although the subject can be attractive for dental area, the study was not proper designed, and the conclusions cannot be supported by the methods employed and results obtained.
-The title “Preclinical study” is not appropriate for this study since many in vitro experiments are still required to reach a clinical study.
-Abstract: the text is confused and needs clarification, specially in methods description. Also, a conclusion phrase must be added.
-In many parts of the study, the authors use the term “types of bacterial” or “antibacterial activity” but cites Candida albicans that is a fungus. Some examples are in lines 36, 41, 55, 222, 230, 237.
-In all the text, the nomenclature of microorganisms must be revised. Line 131: change “mycobacterium” by “Mycobacterium”.
-Methodology section is confused, and several parts are questionable.
-Line 226: Why the selected microbial strains (ATCC) were isolated in culture medium?
-Line 231: How the concentrations of microbial suspensions were adjusted?
-Line 232: The sentence “After disinfection with a UV lamp, the alginate material…” is unclear. This procedure of disinfection must be described, including the equipment used, type of UV lamp and exposure time. Also, how UV lamp can influence the physical properties of alginate? If it does not cause alteration in alginate material, maybe it can be used as a disinfectant for alginate impression materials instead CA and other chemical agents.
-Lines 251-252: It is necessary to describe the culture medium for all microbial strains.
-Lines 255-256: Describe in which dilutions the growth in plates were counted.
-Figures 1 and 2 need to show the results of untreated control groups (that did not receive CA). In addition, it is very important to make a statistical analysis to compare all the groups studied.
-The results of Figure 2 are unclear. Is CFU/mL quantification represented using log10? The authors prepared microbial suspensions of 107 cells/mL, but the UFC/mL recovered appears very different. Again, the untreated control group is fundamental to understand the results.
-Discussion and conclusion need to be improved. I think that important points of concerns are the presence of saliva in impression material and cytotoxic effects of CA on human cells. It deserves a detailed discussion.
The manuscript needs an extensive revision as indicated above.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your work to PeerJ. We have received feedback from our peers, and unfortunately, there are major revisions required and cannot be accepted in current form. Please carefully address each comment and submit your revised manuscript along with your responses.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Reviewer 2 has highlighted that the manuscript is considerably short and requires additional experiments to present the details comprehensively. This, coupled with the observation from Reviewer 4, indicates a need for a major revision.
Furthermore, Reviewer 4 emphasized the necessity for additional experiments, the implementation of orthogonal characterization tests to support the findings, and addressing fundamental flaws. They noted that there is insufficient information to judge the manuscript as a complete submission. Your critical attention to these aspects is crucial to tailor your manuscript more effectively.
We look forward to reading your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Dr. Nagendran Tharmalingam
Editor - PeerJ.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
I appreciate authors for a well- structured article. It is an interesting manuscript with potential clinical application. I suggest authors to consider using universally accepted Microbiological Nomenclature to mention microbes in the publications.
Experiments were designed carefully and performed.
It is commendable that the authors have validated the impact of CA on the impression material as well as bacterial pathogens. It is also interesting that the authors have identified a gap in the literature that such studies doesn't exist against viruses.
The manuscript is too short to be published as a research article in any journal of International repute. More diverse experimentation and findings needs to be included before it gets published as a research article. Certain minimum number of figures should be suggestive else it could be published as other potential heads of the journal like commentary, etc
Fails to meet standards
More extensive research is needed
The manuscript provides a detailed account of an experiment investigating the disinfection of alginate dental impressions using chlorogenic acid (CA). The report is well-structured, with clear sections detailing the experimental setup, physical properties assessment, bacteriostatic effects, dimensional accuracy tests, and statistical analysis. The use of standard language and referencing to established standards (ISO21563) enhances the clarity of the study. However, a brief introduction or background section could improve the context for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter.
The experimental design is comprehensive, outlining the disinfection methods, CA concentrations, and types of impressions used for comparison. The inclusion of both self-disinfection during impression making and external disinfection after impression making adds depth to the study. However, the absence of details on randomisation and blinding procedures raises concerns about potential bias. Additionally, the rationale behind the chosen concentrations and the selection of specific bacteria strains could be better justified.
The findings of the study are presented in a systematic manner, addressing physical properties, bacteriostatic effects, and dimensional accuracy. The use of statistical analyses enhances the robustness of the results. The alignment with ISO standards for alginate impressions and the lack of statistically significant differences in dimensional accuracy among the tested methods contribute to the validity of the findings. However, a more in-depth discussion of potential limitations, such as the choice of bacteria strains and the generalizability of results, would strengthen the interpretation of the findings.
The study provides valuable insights into the use of chlorogenic acid for alginate impression disinfection. The incorporation of both physical and microbiological assessments enriches the scope of the research. However, the manuscript could benefit from improved clarity in certain sections, particularly the rationale behind the experimental choices and the implications of the findings for clinical practice. Additionally, further exploration of potential limitations and avenues for future research would enhance the manuscript's overall contribution to the field.
This is an interesting study where the authors attempt to study the use of chlorogenic acid as a disinfectant for alginate-based impression materials. Although the authors have presented some data on the antibacterial effect of chlorogenic acid on an alginate impression material and its antibacterial effects, the paper still lacks in various areas and, therefore, in this present state, it would not be suitable for publication as it is fundamentally flawed from a scientific perspective. Several points must be addressed before this manuscript can be considered for publication.
The introduction section provides insufficient field background/context concerning chlorogenic acid (CA). The authors must discuss, in future submissions, the mechanism of antimicrobial activity that CA exhibits and the literature that discusses this. Avoid making vague statements like "effective antibacterial agent" or "anti-inflammatory agent." etc, without discussing the findings of the studies that you cite.
Why have the authors not discussed the toxicity of CA, and if there are any risks associated with it for the users - especially the dental professionals who might come in contact with it? Please discuss this point adequately.
The research question is neither well-defined nor meaningful. Also, the authors fail to explain how this research helps fill unidentified gaps in the field. Please ensure that the manuscript addresses this point in the introduction section. For example, several other disinfectants are presently being used; one such example is Sodium hypochlorite; the authors must perform an adequate literature survey and mention the ones that are commonly used and how CA might be advantageous or disadvantageous to those used.
The materials and methods section needs to be much more detailed and specify the exact materials the authors have used.
Line 139: Chlorogenic acid - Manufacturer? Product number? Other identifiers?
Line 140: Alginate powder - What kind of alginate is it? Who made it? Product identifiers?
Please remember that your manuscript must include all the data a reader would need to replicate your study exactly.
Line 141- What is the model of the equipment?
The above points are not an exhaustive list and are only provided as examples; the authors must proofread and address several more issues.
What is the rationale behind choosing 5- minutes for bacterial inoculation? How does this compare to a real-life scenario? Why have not the authors used an impression material that has been used on a human for comparison? Such a test would be extremely easy to do, and it is not an invasive procedure, so getting ethical approvals should not be an issue. Are the rest of the incubation conditions representative of a real application scenario?
The data provided is not adequate.
The discussion section should discuss your results extensively. In this manuscript, the discussion section is written as a literature review and, therefore, is confusing. In future submissions, present your results clearly and discuss them in your discussion section. The discussion section in my opinion, has major flaws and therefore needs to be rewritten from scratch.
The conclusion section simply reiterates the results. In future submissions, please ensure that they are better stated and detailed and provide a good summary of the research findings. It would also help to discuss the implications of your findings and how they might help advance the field in this section, too.
Unfortunately, the manuscript is incomplete in its present state. The authors must perform additional experiments, do orthogonal characterization tests to support findings, and address many fundamental flaws that persist since there is insufficient information to judge the manuscript as a complete submission.
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.