Study of Immediate Implants Placed in Mandibular Alveolar Bone Reconstructed with Screw-Guided Bone Regeneration Technique: A 24-Months Follow-Up

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.This study belongs to a screw-guided bone regeneration (S-GBR) clinical reports, 20 edentulous patients and 24 months were evaluated. From the results in clinical parameters of soft tissues: mPI, mGI, probing depth, keratinized mucosa, marginal bone-level, the S-GBR group have better osteointegration effects. But the overall implant success rate after 24 month and the survival rate after 24 months, the results show the S-GBR group are lower compared to control group. Please explain it detailly? (Line 330-331: this result should be caused by early loading and the huge amount of regenerated bone around the immediate inserted implants.) The description is not so clear…

2.Besides, this paper should be retouching to emphasis the novelty and creativity to fit the criteria of a science paper.

3.Figure 10 A-B: The scale of the two images is different, it’s very hard to compare the effects.

4.All figures cannot find the corresponding text description in the manuscript. It’s hard to read the paper for readers.

5.Overall, this paper lacks the novelty and creativity for a science paper. Although, this paper has described detailly in clinically procedures, but S-GBR implementation concepts of the paper should be graphically for the readers easily to understand.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Study of Immediate Implants Placed in Mandibular Alveolar  Bone Reconstructed with Screw-Guided Bone Regeneration  Technique: A 24-Months Follow-Up” presents a study evaluating a GBR technique with a follow-up of 24 months. The parameters evaluated are implants success; implants survival; mPI; mGI; probing depth; keratinized mucosa; marginal bone-level resorption.

 

The study as a whole could be considered for publication, but the following issues need to be addressed.

 

1. Line 13: Randomly -> the study is not randomized, since the two groups are not homogeneous at the beginning and are allocated to the test or control group on the basis of anatomical conformation and not on the basis of a randomization. This is a prospective cohort clinical study.
2. Conclusions are missing from the abstract
3. Line 38: The sentence "The enhancement of alveolar bone volume and quality is requested." Is not linked to the previous one
4. "Native" on line 113 is in contradiction with "porcine" on line 130
5. Lines 68 and following: Describe the substantial differences between the technique used in this study and the horizontal GBR techniques extensively described in the previous literature (for example see PMID: 18724849, PMID: 9109265)
6. Line 157: nerv
7. The calculation of the sample size is missing
8. Initial and post-operative cross-sectional images of the clinical case are missing.
9. In the clinical case presented (Figure 10), could the implant have been positioned 1-2 mm more apical, allowing a biomaterial graft not to be performed?
10. In the clinical case presented, what diameter are the implants placed?
11. "new opportunities" line 355: the technique is not new and has been described at least since the 1990s
12. In the conclusions it must be specified that the technique used has a worse marginal success rate, survival rate and bone resorption than the graft-free technique.

 

 

 

 

 

For the reasons listed above, my final recommendation is to reconsider after major revisions the manuscript.

 

Best regards

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered the questions posed