Salivary Oxidative Stress Biomarkers in Peri-Implant Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract requires some modifications
Refs of Fig 1???
PICOS model, Refs???
Eligibility Criteria, Refs???
Remove the sub-Sections from Discussion Section
Remove the parts of the text (464-480, and 483-496), as they contain irrelevant data
Refs of Fig. 9???
Conclusion(s) Section: Reduce, and state the main outcomes only....
Comments for author File:
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File:
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper ”Salivary Oxidative Stress Biomarkers in Peri-Implant Disease: 2 A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 3” by Popa P.S. et al. focuses on evaluating whether salivary malondialdehyde and total antioxidant capacity are associated with peri-implant disease. The manuscript is well organized, and all the criteria for a systematic review have been followed. Nevertheless, there are some issues that I need to address:
- the quality of the figures included in the manuscript is quite low, and it needs to be improved
- on lines 61-68 of the introduction section, the authors comment on results obtained in previous studies regarding other oxidative stress biomarkers than the one included in the present article. I think that that part should be removed, as it is not needed.
- the conclusion section is too long. I recommend summarizing the information.
- the 12 articles included in the analysis are not cited in the reference section
- perhaps figures 1 and 9 could be combined, as they contain similar parts
- minor spelling check should be performed. For example in figure 1 defanse should be corrected and replaces with denfese
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File:
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, the manuscript has been improved by the authors during the revision process, and I agree with its publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you very much for your suggestions; they have improved our manuscript considerably.
