A Review of Guidelines for Antibiotic Prophylaxis before Invasive Dental Treatments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for trusting my judgment in reviewing the manuscript entitled "A Review of Guidelines for Antibiotic Prophylaxis before Invasive Dental Treatments".
After careful examination of the manuscript I observe a correct review that exposes the controversy between the protocols for bacterial endocarditis of different associations.
A comparison of the incidence of endocarditis and the protocols applied in different countries is missing. A table of the incidence of endocarditis would have been appropriate to improve understanding of the topic.
It would have been interesting for the scientific community to see whether or not the incidence of endocarditis without antibiotic prophylaxis in dental interventions is similar to those interventions in which prophylaxis is administered.
In my opinion, the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to be published because it does not provide new knowledge (a simple search of the last 5 years reveals 67 reviews and systematic reviews of this subject).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing this paper and your valuable input which is highly considered. We’ve added a table which compares the incidences of IE before and after the introduction of these protocols which shows how things have changed after the introduction of new guidelines.
Regards,
Research Team
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript is about an interesting topic and it is of clinical interest in dentistry and maxillo-facial surgery.
Despite the topic You should reorganize and modify the paper, it is not suitable for publication in this form.
Please use and follow MDPI author guidelines.
In abstract section please remove subparagraph.
In keyword section please use medical subject headings (MeSH word).
Introduction and conclusion? Authors should reorganize the manuscript according to guidelines. Please use introduction/M&M/Results/Discussion.
Introduction section should be modified and improved, authors must specify more background information, You could refer to recent literature as:
Cervino, G.; Cicciù, M.; Biondi, A.; Bocchieri, S.; Herford, A.S.; Laino, L.; Fiorillo, L. Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Third Molar Extraction: Systematic Review of Recent Data. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 53, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8020053.
In introduction section You need to better state the aim of the article. Antibiotic prophylaxis or endocarditis prevention? Please be more focused.
You could move all protocols and tables in results section.
In discussion section You need to discuss these results. You could classify infection risk.
In conclusion section please specify future perspective of this manuscript
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking time and reviewing this manuscript and for your suggested comments.
Please find the reply below.
- Please use and follow MDPI author guidelines
The manuscript style has been changed and it now follows the MDPI style.
- In abstract section please remove subparagraph.
The subparagraphs are now removed.
- In keyword section please use medical subject headings (MeSH word).
Keywords are now changed to MeSH word.
- Introduction and conclusion? Authors should reorganize the manuscript according to guidelines. Please use introduction/M&M/Results/Discussion.
The manuscript style has been changed and it now follows the MDPI style.
- Introduction section should be modified and improved, authors must specify more background information, You could refer to recent literature as:
Cervino, G.; Cicciù, M.; Biondi, A.; Bocchieri, S.; Herford, A.S.; Laino, L.; Fiorillo, L. Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Third Molar Extraction: Systematic Review of Recent Data. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 53, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics8020053.
The introduction has been modified and recent literature is used.
- In introduction section You need to better state the aim of the article. Antibiotic prophylaxis or endocarditis prevention? Please be more focused.
Introduction section has been updated and the aim is highlighted
- You could move all protocols and tables in results section.
- Tables moved to results section
Tables and protocols are moved to results section
- In discussion section You need to discuss these results. You could classify infection risk.
Discussion section has been added.
- In conclusion section please specify future perspective of this manuscript
We have mentioned the recommendation of future need of global consensus between associations and societies for the development of informative guidelines for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to invasive dental procedures.
Regards,
Research Team
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This new version is much better explained.
I have a comment about the conclusions.
Line 235-236. "Similar to the UK, in the US it was found that the effect incidences of infective endocarditis increased 235 following the release of the guidance in 2007".
It is not really similar. Following Table 2, the incidence of endocarditis after guidance in the UK increases by 42-67 points per 1,000,000 while in the US it increases by 14-15 points per 100,000.
The difference is very noticeable. This data should be clarified in the text. It is true that there is an increase in the incidence of endocarditis in the two countries, but the difference is striking (the incidence in the US would be 140-150 per 1,000,000), actually more than double.
As explained in the text, they would be at the same level when obviously this is not the case.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your guidance throughout this review process, your comments are relay appreciated
The difference has been highlighted in the discussion and the sentence was changed to “In the US, the incidence of endocarditis was also increased but when comparing it with the UK, the difference was almost doubled following the release of the guidance in 2007.”
Regards,
Research Team
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, now the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Thank You
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments throughout this process of review. We really appreciate your efforts and suggestions.
Regards,
Research Team
