Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration: Understanding Microbiome Shifts and the Role of Antifouling and Bactericidal Materials: A Narrative Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors in this narrative review manuscript titled "Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration: Understanding Microbiome Shifts, and the Role of Antifouling and Bactericidal Materials" analyze the interaction between the complex oral microbiome and regenerative therapies in periodontal disease. Also, they described the materials, biological and antibacterial substances that can increase the effectiveness of treatments in periodontitis and that can reduce the oral microbial biofilm. The topic is original and relevant for this field because the approach is different, being focused in particular on microbial dynamics in periodontal regeneration and the possibility of biological and non-biological products to increase this regeneration. Compared with other published material, the authors describe in detail the Impact of regenerative therapies on the oral microbiome and microbiome changes after different procedures. The authors also carefully describe the role of biologics, antimicrobials, and microbiome modulation in periodontal regeneration and advanced therapeutic strategies in periodontal regeneration. The conclusions support the discussions and possible future research directions are listed. The references are numerous, over 100, and relevant to the topic. The figures and tables complete and highlight the explanations better.

I noticed some small issues:

The article is not put in the journal format at all.

Not all names of bacteria are written in italics.

The limitations of the review are not mentioned.

Author Response

We are grateful for the thoughtful feedback provided by the reviewers regarding our manuscript titled "Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration: Understanding Microbiome Shifts and the Role of Antifouling and Bactericidal Materials." We appreciate the reviewers’ positive comments, especially regarding the relevance and originality of the topic, as well as the detailed analysis we provided on microbial dynamics and the role of biologics and antibacterial substances in periodontal regeneration.

We have carefully reviewed the minor issues raised by the reviewers and would like to address them as follows:

1. Journal Format: We acknowledge that the article was not initially formatted according to the journal's guidelines. We will ensure that the manuscript is fully formatted in line with the journal’s specific requirements and will resubmit it accordingly. However, we kindly request assistance from your team in ensuring that all formatting specifications are correctly implemented, as we want to ensure it adheres perfectly to your journal’s standards.
2. Bacteria Names: We have reviewed the manuscript and will ensure that all bacterial names are italicized as per the correct formatting convention. We understand the importance of adhering to scientific nomenclature standards, and this issue will be rectified in the revised version.
3. Limitations of the Review: We agree that the limitations of the review should be explicitly mentioned. In our revised manuscript, we will include a section on the limitations, highlighting areas such as the potential biases inherent in narrative reviews and the need for further experimental validation of the discussed microbial dynamics and materials.

We hope that these revisions adequately address the reviewer's comments, and we will be submitting the corrected version shortly. Please let us know if any further adjustments are required.

Thank you once again for your feedback and support. We look forward to hearing from you.

We are grateful for the thoughtful feedback provided by the reviewers regarding our manuscript titled "Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration: Understanding Microbiome Shifts and the Role of Antifouling and Bactericidal Materials." We appreciate the reviewers’ positive comments, especially regarding the relevance and originality of the topic, as well as the detailed analysis we provided on microbial dynamics and the role of biologics and antibacterial substances in periodontal regeneration.

We have carefully reviewed the minor issues raised by the reviewers and would like to address them as follows:

1. Journal Format: We acknowledge that the article was not initially formatted according to the journal's guidelines. We will ensure that the manuscript is fully formatted in line with the journal’s specific requirements and will resubmit it accordingly. However, we kindly request assistance from your team in ensuring that all formatting specifications are correctly implemented, as we want to ensure it adheres perfectly to your journal’s standards.
2. Bacteria Names: We have reviewed the manuscript and will ensure that all bacterial names are italicized as per the correct formatting convention. We understand the importance of adhering to scientific nomenclature standards, and this issue will be rectified in the revised version.
3. Limitations of the Review: We agree that the limitations of the review should be explicitly mentioned. In our revised manuscript, we will include a section on the limitations, highlighting areas such as the potential biases inherent in narrative reviews and the need for further experimental validation of the discussed microbial dynamics and materials.

We hope that these revisions adequately address the reviewer's comments, and we will be submitting the corrected version shortly. Please let us know if any further adjustments are required.

Thank you once again for your feedback and support. We look forward to hearing from you.

We are grateful for the thoughtful feedback provided by the reviewers regarding our manuscript titled "Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration: Understanding Microbiome Shifts and the Role of Antifouling and Bactericidal Materials." We appreciate the reviewers’ positive comments, especially regarding the relevance and originality of the topic, as well as the detailed analysis we provided on microbial dynamics and the role of biologics and antibacterial substances in periodontal regeneration.

We have carefully reviewed the minor issues raised by the reviewers and would like to address them as follows:

1. Journal Format: We acknowledge that the article was not initially formatted according to the journal's guidelines. We will ensure that the manuscript is fully formatted in line with the journal’s specific requirements and will resubmit it accordingly. However, we kindly request assistance from your team in ensuring that all formatting specifications are correctly implemented, as we want to ensure it adheres perfectly to your journal’s standards.
2. Bacteria Names: We have reviewed the manuscript and will ensure that all bacterial names are italicized as per the correct formatting convention. We understand the importance of adhering to scientific nomenclature standards, and this issue will be rectified in the revised version.
3. Limitations of the Review: We agree that the limitations of the review should be explicitly mentioned. In our revised manuscript, we will include a section on the limitations, highlighting areas such as the potential biases inherent in narrative reviews and the need for further experimental validation of the discussed microbial dynamics and materials.

We hope that these revisions adequately address the reviewer's comments, and we will be submitting the corrected version shortly. Please let us know if any further adjustments are required.

Thank you once again for your feedback and support. We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, i want to thank you for submitting you paper to our journal; unfortunately i do not believe this article is fit for publication in our journal or that is particularly interesting to the readers. The paper presented is merely a summary of several grafting procedures and materials and does not even offer any particular interesting informations regarding these microbial dynamics or how to implement any changes in our research or in our clinical practice. There are no methodological flaws but i do not believe this is fit for our journal.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)

 

Dear authors, i want to thank you for submitting you paper to our journal; unfortunately i do not believe this article is fit for publication in our journal or that is particularly interesting to the readers. The paper presented is merely a summary of several grafting procedures and materials and does not even offer any particular interesting informations regarding these microbial dynamics or how to implement any changes in our research or in our clinical practice. There are no methodological flaws but i do not believe this is fit for our journal.

Response

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for the time you have taken to review our manuscript. While we respect your decision, we would like to take this opportunity to clarify some points that highlight the strength of our review, which we believe may not have been fully conveyed.

Our manuscript aimed to provide an in-depth exploration of the microbial dynamics involved in bone and tissue regeneration procedures in periodontology, a topic that has not been extensively covered in previous literature. By focusing on how different grafting materials and techniques influence microbial shifts during healing, we sought to address a critical gap in understanding the microbiological implications of these procedures. This is an area that holds great importance for optimizing long-term clinical outcomes, as maintaining microbial balance is essential to the success of regenerative therapies.

While the manuscript summarizes various grafting procedures and materials, the key contribution of our work lies in linking these regenerative approaches to the intricate shifts in gingival and subgingival microbiomes. We specifically examined how different materials, such as autografts, allografts, and xenografts, impact microbial homeostasis and the potential for dysbiosis, which is directly relevant to both clinical practice and ongoing research into optimizing periodontal treatment outcomes.

We acknowledge that the practical implementation of these microbial dynamics in clinical settings may not have been as prominently emphasized as it could have been, but we believe that the review provides a strong foundation for researchers and clinicians interested in the interaction between regenerative procedures and oral microbiology. This review highlights emerging therapeutic strategies, including the use of antifouling and bactericidal materials, which represent innovative approaches that can shape the future of periodontal treatments.

We hope that upon further consideration, the novelty of linking microbiome stability with periodontal regenerative techniques will be seen as valuable to the readers of your journal.

Thank you again for your time, and we greatly appreciate your consideration of our work.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After carefully reviewing the manuscript titled : "Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration: Understanding Microbiome Shifts, and the Role of Antifouling and Bactericidal Materials" I can conclude that topic is interesting for readers, however I have some questions/suggestions to clarify.

Introduction part needs to be shorten, it has some parts which are obvious and there is no need to clarify. Especially look at parts in which are described bone and soft tissue grafting in section „Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration“.

Materials and method are not described in details with many lacks.  From which period of time did You search the databases? What was the starting year? What were inclusion criteria? I suggest to specify these in the text.  These part should be described in more details, becuse it is very important how did You filtrate all articles connected with this topic.

There is lack of classic discussion part so I suggest to accent/to modify this part in the mansucript.

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)

After carefully reviewing the manuscript titled : "Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration: Understanding Microbiome Shifts, and the Role of Antifouling and Bactericidal Materials" I can conclude that topic is interesting for readers, however I have some questions/suggestions to clarify.

The introduction part needs to be shorten, it has some parts which are obvious and there is no need to clarify. Especially look at parts in which are described bone and soft tissue grafting in section „Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration“.

Materials and method are not described in details with many lacks.  From which period of time did You search the databases? What was the starting year? What were inclusion criteria? I suggest to specify these in the text.  These part should be described in more details, becuse it is very important how did You filtrate all articles connected with this topic.

There is lack of classic discussion part so I suggest to accent/to modify this part in the mansucript.

 

Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for considering our manuscript, "Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration: Understanding Microbiome Shifts and the Role of Antifouling and Bactericidal Materials", as an interesting topic for the journal's readers. We appreciate your detailed suggestions and will address each point accordingly.

1. Introduction:
   We understand your concern regarding the length and some sections being overly descriptive, particularly in the parts that discuss bone and soft tissue grafting in the section "Microbial Dynamics in Periodontal Regeneration." We will revise the introduction to streamline and condense these sections, ensuring that only essential information relevant to the topic is included, making the introduction more focused.
2. Materials and Methods:
   We acknowledge the need for a more detailed description of the methods used in our review, specifically regarding the time frame and inclusion criteria for the articles considered. We will specify the starting year for our database search, as well as clarify the inclusion criteria, including the types of studies reviewed, the databases searched, and how we filtered the relevant articles. These details will be clearly stated to enhance the transparency and rigor of our methodology.

Discussion

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the discussion section. We understand the importance of providing a clear and structured discussion in our review. However, as this is a narrative review, we aimed to integrate the discussion of key findings throughout the manuscript rather than isolating it into a separate section. The structure of the review allows for the seamless incorporation of analysis and interpretation within each highlighted area, aligned with the overarching aims of the review.

Throughout the manuscript, we have addressed the critical aspects of microbiome-host interactions in periodontal regeneration by discussing and synthesizing relevant studies as we progress through each section. This approach enables a more cohesive flow, ensuring that key insights and implications are immediately tied to the topics being reviewed. In doing so, we provide continuous reflection on how these findings contribute to understanding the role of the microbiome in periodontal healing and regeneration.

Finally, we have wrapped up the review with a well-defined conclusion that summarizes the primary insights gained and highlights the limitations of the current research, thus offering a complete narrative that adheres to the objectives of the review. We believe this approach ensures a thorough discussion of the findings while maintaining a logical and integrated format, consistent with the nature of a narrative review.

We hope this clarification addresses your concerns, and we remain open to any further suggestions.

We are grateful for your constructive feedback, and we are confident that these revisions will strengthen the manuscript. We look forward to submitting the revised version for your consideration.

Thank you again for your time and insightful suggestions.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have solved my doubts regarding their article.