Review Reports
- Dolaji Henin1,†,
- Luiz Guilherme Fiorin1,2,† and
- Daniela Carmagnola1,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Lucrezia Bottalico Reviewer 2: Vittoria Perrotti
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted manuscript is aimed to compare two different methods for oral tissue evaluation, in particular for periodontitis and periimplantitis.
The study is well organized and well conducted, and of wide interst for both dentists and pathologists.
However, the authors enrolled 22 patients only, so it is a pilot study (or a proof of concept ctudy). This should be clear for the readers, and possibly reported in the title.
No specific ethical issues are present in the reported study, but please specify the University name and the date of the protocol approval at l. 98
In sect. 2.2: please better specify the data regarding the manufacturers
In sect. 3.1.1: comment more extensively the results and the tables' content.
In Discussion, the authors must report the limits of the study.
At last, a revision for English language is suggested.
Author Response
The submitted manuscript is aimed to compare two different methods for oral tissue evaluation, in particular for periodontitis and periimplantitis.
The study is well organized and well conducted, and of wide interst for both dentists and pathologists.
However, the authors enrolled 22 patients only, so it is a pilot study (or a proof of concept ctudy). This should be clear for the readers, and possibly reported in the title.
Thank you, the title was changed.
No specific ethical issues are present in the reported study, but please specify the University name and the date of the protocol approval at l. 98
The name of the University and date of the approval were integrated.
In sect. 2.2: please better specify the data regarding the manufacturers
The manufacturers’ details were added.
In sect. 3.1.1: comment more extensively the results and the tables' content.
A sentence was added in section 3.1.1.
In Discussion, the authors must report the limits of the study.
At the end of the discussion, a paragraph about the study limitations was added and implemented.
At last, a revision for English language is suggested.
Thank you, we had the English language revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Excellent article, very clear, well presented, rigorous methodology !
Only one very minor comment: the legend of table 1 should be placed before the table and not within the text.
Author Response
Excellent article, very clear, well presented, rigorous methodology !
Only one very minor comment: the legend of table 1 should be placed before the table and not within the text.
Thank you, we tried to format the legend in a more appropriate way.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The previous comments have been addressed and the paper is now acceptable