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 September 4th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 2nd, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 17th, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on December 26th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Dec 26, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

After revisions, this manuscript has been significantly improved. I think this paper can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The author's revisions are acceptable, address most concerns and substantially improve manuscript quality.

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

no comment

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No further comments

Experimental design

No further comments

Validity of the findings

No further comments

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 2, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

1. Please improve the conciseness and clarity of these sections to provide a clear and succinct description of the study's findings and implications.
2. Provide more detailed information on patient selection criteria and age.
3. Explain the specific statistical tests used, particularly for correlation analysis.
4. Avoid duplicating numerical values in the text and tables.
5. Establish a clear structure and central argument.
6. Please provide insightful interpretations and draw connections between the results and the broader literature.
7. Avoid repeating information from the Results section and rely less on descriptive language.
8. Please describe the study's limitations and suggest improvements for future research.
9. Avoid using red and green in figures to accommodate color-blind readers.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

This study investigated the impact of orthodontically closing missing tooth gaps by moving molars forward. 26 patients with missing first or second molars underwent full-mouth orthodontic treatment. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were used to assess bone and root volume changes before and after treatment. Results showed minimal bone loss and root resorption (<20%), suggesting that this approach is safe for periodontal health. Age, gender, alveolar bone width, and edentulous gap were found to significantly influence periodontal changes. The study concluded that this orthodontic technique is a feasible and predictable treatment option for closing missing tooth gaps, potentially leading to periodontal improvement and increased bone height. However, there are still many issues that need to be addressed in this study.

Experimental design

See the attachment for details.

Validity of the findings

See the attachment for details.

Additional comments

See the attachment for details.

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

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

1.This article uses CBCT to analyze the changes in alveolar bone height and root resorption of anterior molars, and conducts a volume analysis of influencing factors, and the data statistics are reasonable, which has high clinical guidance significance for such cases. It should be noted that the writing of the manuscript needs to be further improved, especially in the accuracy and simplicity of English expression. In addition, it is necessary to seek native English speakers for full text proofreading.
2.The format of the references is not uniform enough, please revise it. The literature of the last three years is then added whenever possible to ensure that the most recent research is taken into account.
3. The presentation of charts is very professional and clear. However, the line markers in Figure 1 use both red and green, and you need to avoid them. Color blind readers need to be considered.
4.Data sharing is easy to get.

Experimental design

1. In Abstracts, The Result, and Conclusion is not concise enough. Please provide a clear and concise description.
2. The research background is not clear enough. In fact, there are many articles on root resorption. What is the innovation point of this study?
3. In Materials and Methods, select (26 patients, 5 males and 21 females, age over 18 years) as the sample; But what are the criteria for selection? Descriptive information on the patient's age is required.
4. In Materials and Methods, while the methods of statistical analysis are stated, a more detailed explanation of specific statistical tests, particularly those related to correlation analysis, would enhance the comprehensiveness of the methods section.
5. It is unclear whether the researchers controlled for other factors that could influence periodontal changes, such as the type of orthodontic appliance used or the duration of treatment. While correlations can highlight potential relationships, they do not establish causation. Further research is needed to understand the causal mechanisms behind the observed correlations.

Validity of the findings

1. The results section presents some findings, but it lacks clarity, conciseness, and proper organization, making it challenging to understand the study's findings.
2.The presentation of the results is unclear and lacks coherence. It's difficult to follow the logic and connections between the findings. The use of terms like "low correlation" can be misleading as it suggests a weak relationship, while the actual significance may vary based on the context.
3.The discussion lacks a clear structure and jumps back and forth between different topics, making it difficult to follow the main arguments. The discussion doesn't clearly establish a central argument or thesis statement. It feels more like a list of observations rather than a cohesive discussion of the study's implications.
4.The discussion repeats information presented in the Results section, which is redundant and makes the writing tedious. The discussion relies heavily on descriptive language and lacks critical analysis. It simply restates findings without providing insightful interpretations or drawing connections between the results and the broader literature.

Additional comments

The limitations of the study need to be more clearly described.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

Enhancing the systematization of the results is crucial, as this will significantly improve their readability and comprehension. Furthermore, avoiding duplicating numerical values ​​in the text and the tables is advisable.
This study has several limitations. Try to highlight all of its limitations. Additionally, it suggests emphasizing improvements that could be made for future studies so that the results have a solid scientific basis.

Additional comments

no comment

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.