Next Article in Journal
Three Pathways of Cancer Cachexia: Inflammation, Changes in Adipose Tissue and Loss of Muscle Mass—The Role of miRNAs
Next Article in Special Issue
Gender Differences in Oral Health: Self-Reported Attitudes, Values, Behaviours and Literacy among Romanian Adults
Previous Article in Journal
Does miR-197 Represent a Valid Prognostic Biomarker in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC)? A Systematic Review and Trial Sequential Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Self-Reported Measures of Periodontitis in a Portuguese Population: A Validation Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparison of the Post-Surgical Position of the Temporomandibular Joint after Orthognathic Surgery in Skeletal Class III Patients and Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate

J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(9), 1437; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12091437
by Yi-Hao Lee 1, Chi-Yu Tsai 1, Ling-Chun Wang 1, U-Kei Lai 1, Jui-Pin Lai 2, Shiu-Shiung Lin 1 and Yu-Jen Chang 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(9), 1437; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12091437
Submission received: 17 August 2022 / Revised: 29 August 2022 / Accepted: 30 August 2022 / Published: 31 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Prevention and Management of Oral Healthcare)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, the research is a case-control retrospective study, aimed to highligt differences between the condylar angulation and position after surgery in two groups of Class III patients, with and without cleft lip and palate. The research is well setted, and its strenght and limitation are clearly described. My only concern is on the missing of a sample size calculation, but I noticed that you describe this missing in the limitation of the research.

In my opinion the paper should be published.

Author Response

We appreciate the helpful comment made by the reviewer, which will improve the quality of our manuscript. Thanks for your review and comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors compared the stability of TMJ in orthognathic surgery among non-cleft versus cleft with class III skeletal profile. The use of the term instability and relapse should be clarify further as comparing pre versus post-operative surgical changes only account to the changes that occurred due to the surgical movement itself and not a relapse. Other detailed comments:

 

1.       English correction is needed

2.       Proofreading is also necessary with some typing errors

3.       Figure 1 cannot be found within the manuscript

4.       Either 3A or 3B (only one figure is available) also cannot be found in the manuscript.

5.       Results in table 3, regarding the distance between pre versus post op landmarks of the condyle. It is not very clear if the distance measure follows certain plane (anterior posterior distance parallel to a certain axis) or direct measurement between distance. If just a direct measurement, how do we know if the displacement is in vertical or horizontal or depths (X, Y or Z axis).

6.       State the P-value in the table 3 and 4

7.       It is not clear what the authors meant by “mean displacement”. Does it mean the difference between pre-op and post-op position? Then the displacement is actually caused by the surgical movement, not relapse (or stability). For stability, the displacement must be defined by the “position of condyle landmarks immediately postop versus similar landmarks in few months (6 months in this study)”

Author Response

We are grateful for the excellent suggestions made by the reviewer, which will improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. The point-by point response to review's comments are demonstrated in the attachment file. Please see the attachment and thanks for your review and comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop