Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting study on the apical extrusion of debris by two instrumentation systems. 

Both systems promise to prepare various root canal shapes due to the fact, that they do not work in a classical circular or reciprocating motion. This fact makes it interesting to compare one system with another in terms of extrusion of dentinal debris.

Regarding the study setup, the paper is well-organized. Especially the fact, that the extrusion after the different instrumentation stages were investigated, is a helpful and reasonable aspect.

However, regarding the results section, it would be more than appropriate to present a Boxplot diagram due to the fact that there was no additional table included showing the difference results (mean, SD, median, min, max). This is of certain importance for the reader and would improve this section tremendously.

The discussion is nicely performed and includes also the necessary aspect of the missing periodical counter pressure. However, from my point of view, this aspect is somwhat overrated. Regarding the fact, that periodical lesions can widely vary in size and volume, the extent of the counter pressure may differ accordingly. In order to compare both instruments in terms of AED, the setup seems appropriate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Your studymight be interesting, however the manuscript lacks of appealing. 

Indeed micrographs of the debris extrusion should be added (for example under the stereomicrope)

In addition, information on the materials and the shape of the instruments shoudl be a point of discussion adding support to Your results. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

thank You for complying to the suggestions. 

Manuscript is now more appealing and clear.