Bite and Sight: Is There a Correlation? Clinical Association between Dental Malocclusion and Visual Disturbances in Pediatric Patients

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic has some interest.

However, there are some issues that need to be clarified and / or changed by the authors.

1. The bibliography must be completely revised. It has multiple errors and does not comply with the magazine's rules.
2. The bibliography must be updated. Most references are not current. Authors must include the most recent bibliographic references.
3. Line 65 - the bibliography date has one more number
4. Authors should describe the sample potency test that defined the sample n used
5. The results must be presented in a graph format for better visualization and interpretation of the results. The format presented is very confusing.
6. In the discussion the authors refer several times to the excellent work done. This speech is not suitable for a scientific article. They must change the phrases where these references are made (line 216, 217, line257, 258, line 265, line 267, line 284, line 285)
7. Authors should mention the numerous limitations of their study.
8. The conclusions are not adequate. Once again the discourse is unscientific and objective.

Author Response

1. The bibliography must be completely revised. It has multiple errors and does not comply with the magazine's rules.

This point was changed in the last version.

2. The bibliography must be updated. Most references are not current. Authors must include the most recent bibliographic references.

This point was changed in the last version.

3. Line 65 - the bibliography date has one more number

This point was changed in the last version.

4. Authors should describe the sample potency test that defined the sample n used

This point was changed in the last version.
5. The results must be presented in a graph format for better visualization and interpretation of the results. The format presented is very confusing.

This point was changed in the last version.

6. In the discussion the authors refer several times to the excellent work done. This speech is not suitable for a scientific article. They must change the phrases where these references are made (line 216, 217, line257, 258, line 265, line 267, line 284, line 285)

This point was changed in the last version.

7. Authors should mention the numerous limitations of their study.

This point was changed in the last version.

8. The conclusions are not adequate. Once again the discourse is unscientific and objective.

This point was changed in the last version.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting paper since it presents facts which are mostly unknown to maxillofacial and facial plastic surgeons and probably also to orthodontists and ophthalmologists.

Unfortunately there are many errors in the English language. I recommend to have a native speaker (preferably with a medical background) thouroughly revise the text.

You should write out the words hidden in the acronym R.O.M.A. so that all non- orthodontists can immediately understand the meaning of this index.

The paper of Grippaudo et al. 2013 is mentioned in the paper but missing in the reference list.

In your results you state that 50,98% of the control group had vision defects whereas these defects were detected in 40,38 % of the class II group which you call a significantly higher percentage ( in comparison with the  control group figure. This is not easy to understand. Please clarify these figures.

Author Response

This is a very interesting paper since it presents facts which are mostly unknown to maxillofacial and facial plastic surgeons and probably also to orthodontists and ophthalmologists.

Thank you so much

Unfortunately there are many errors in the English language. I recommend to have a native speaker (preferably with a medical background) thouroughly revise the text.

This point was changed in the last version

You should write out the words hidden in the acronym R.O.M.A. so that all non- orthodontists can immediately understand the meaning of this index.

This point was changed in the last version

The paper of Grippaudo et al. 2013 is mentioned in the paper but missing in the reference list.

This point was changed in the last version

In your results you state that 50,98% of the control group had vision defects whereas these defects were detected in 40,38 % of the class II group which you call a significantly higher percentage ( in comparison with the  control group figure. This is not easy to understand. Please clarify these figures.

This point was changed in the last version

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations on this article,

I find it extremely interesting and well exposed.

Has the trial been registered in the NIH clinicaltrials.com database? If yes, can you report the number?

Could you state the direct implications of these findings in the clinical practice? How can the diagnosis of malocclusion improve the diagnosis and treatment of visual disorders and vice versa?

In the conclusions you underline the fact that a visual exam must be added to the orthodontic evaluation, how this should complement and improve the occlusal examination, what conclusions should it lead to in the diagnosis?

Thank you

Author Response

Congratulations on this article,

I find it extremely interesting and well exposed.

Thank you so much

Has the trial been registered in the NIH clinicaltrials.com database? If yes, can you report the number?

The study was not registered in the NIH clinicaltrials.com database

Could you state the direct implications of these findings in the clinical practice? How can the diagnosis of malocclusion improve the diagnosis and treatment of visual disorders and vice versa?

This point was changed in the last version

In the conclusions you underline the fact that a visual exam must be added to the orthodontic evaluation, how this should complement and improve the occlusal examination, what conclusions should it lead to in the diagnosis?

This point was changed in the last version

Thank you