A Novel Digital Technique to Quantify the Area and Volume of Enamel Removal after Interproximal Enamel Reduction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript showed a novel and accurate measurement digital protocol for analyzing the area and volume of interproximal tooth enamel surface reduction

The study is of sound design and of clear practical and clinical interest, but some improvements are needed. I would give some comments and suggestions, which will help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

I would give some comments and suggestions, which will help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

1. Introduction. please describe the difference and novelty compared to the previous studies(other authors) in more detail. 

2. Method. This study only evaluated Mean, Median, SD, Minimum, and Maximum. I recommend to perform other statistical analysis for identifying statistical significance between groups. 

3. Discussion. Reference 17 and 34. Errors should be corrected.

4. Figures and Tables. There are too many figure and tables in a manuscript. Please reduce the number of figure and table (total less than 5)

5. Line 147-160. It is not easy to understand your method about randomly distributed points. Please describe more easily for readers.

6. Conclusion. "In conclusion, within the limitations of this study, the results showed that the morphometric measurement protocol is an accurate measurement digital protocol for analyzing the area and volume of interproximal enamel surface reduction." This sentences is little bit awkward. Please modify the sentence.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

I’m pleased to resubmit the manuscript of the work entitled, “Novel Digital Technique to Quantify the Area and Volume of Enamel Removal after the Interproximal Enamel Reduction”.

Reviewer 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have we have sent the manuscript to the English editing service of MDPI.

Reviewer 1: Introduction. please describe the difference and novelty compared to the previous studies (other authors) in more detail.

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have added a new paragraph in the introduction section.

Reviewer 1: Method. This study only evaluated Mean, Median, SD, Minimum, and Maximum. I recommend to perform other statistical analysis for identifying statistical significance between groups.

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have included a comparative statistical analysis in both Material and Methods section and Results section.

Reviewer 1: Discussion. Reference 17 and 34. Errors should be corrected.

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have corrected the book mark links in line 205, 237 and 264

Reviewer 1: Figures and Tables. There are too many figure and tables in a manuscript. Please reduce the number of figure and table (total less than 5)

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we want to clarify that the aim of the study was to show a novel measurement procedure and we consider that the figures selected are necessary to provide information to future researchers about how to perform the measurement procedure. In addition, Applied Sciences does not limit the number of figures on the guidelines section.

Reviewer 1: Line 147-160. It is not easy to understand your method about randomly distributed points. Please describe more easily for readers.

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have changed the sentences.

Reviewer 1: Conclusion. "In conclusion, within the limitations of this study, the results showed that the morphometric measurement protocol is an accurate measurement digital protocol for analyzing the area and volume of interproximal enamel surface reduction." This sentences is little bit awkward. Please modify the sentence.

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 1 comment, we have changed the Conclusion sentence

We take this opportunity to thank the recommendations and suggestions made by the reviewers to improve the document.

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is intersting but should be revised because is not clear in many points.

A.A. should revise the text and reformat some unclear paragraph

(es. line 61,69-69, 152-155 181-183)

It could be interesting to expand the introduction improving the technical details of the digital technique that could be used for this kind of evaluation.

The A.A. should provide more details of the technique used 

Correct the error in line 205 -237

The result section is not clear and should be revised to let the reader better understand the results. (es line 181-184)

The discussion section should be deeply rewritten comparing the data of this research to the one present in literature and comparing the technical analysis performed with the one present in literature to underline the advantage and disadvantage of this analysis.

In the discussion authors speak about roughness but the paper is related to Descriptive analysis of the area of the enamel removed, so the findings of the paper should be compared to similar present in literature. 

The paper ha many non clear paragraph, a professional english typesetting is suggested

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

I’m pleased to resubmit the manuscript of the work entitled, “Novel Digital Technique to Quantify the Area and Volume of Enamel Removal after the Interproximal Enamel Reduction”.

Reviewer 2: Moderate English changes required

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have we have sent the manuscript to a professional English editing service.

Reviewer 2: A.A. should revise the text and reformat some unclear paragraph (es. line 61,69-69, 152-155 181-183)

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have rephrase all the paragraphs and the article sent to a professional English editing service. 

Reviewer 2: It could be interesting to expand the introduction improving the technical details of the digital technique that could be used for this kind of evaluation

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have expanded the introduction trying to improve the technical details and the advantages of this novel technique.

Reviewer 2: The A.A. should provide more details of the technique used 

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have modify material and methods trying to make it more repeatable for the readers.

Reviewer 2: Correct the error in line 205 -237

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have corrected the error in the bookmark in line 205, 237 and 264

Reviewer 2: The result section is not clear and should be revised to let the reader better understand the results. (es line 181-184)

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have rephrased the paragraph in order to let the reader a better understand of the results.

Reviewer 2: The discussion section should be deeply rewritten comparing the data of this research to the one present in literature and comparing the technical analysis performed with the one present in literature to underline the advantage and disadvantage of this analysis.

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have added a new paragraph in the article (249-254) comparing this technique with the previous publications, remarking the benefits of this protocol and the possibilities of its applications in clinical protocols.

Reviewer 2: In the discussion authors speak about roughness but the paper is related to Descriptive analysis of the area of the enamel removed, so the findings of the paper should be compared to similar present in literature.

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have added two more articles in the discussion, which, focus in the quantity if removed enamel is done in each tooth. However, is worth remarking that in the literature there are so many articles around the enamel surface after the stripping method and the caries assessment risk after the stripping procedure, however, there are a lack of publications around the quantification of the stripping with an objective method that we can apply in a clinical protocols.

Reviewer 2: The paper ha many non clear paragraph, a professional english typesetting is suggested

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have we have sent the manuscript to a professional English editing service.

We take this opportunity to thank the recommendations and suggestions made by the reviewers to improve the document.

Yours sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is now suitable for publication. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

I’m pleased to resubmit the manuscript of the work entitled, “A Novel Digital Technique to Quantify the Area and Volume of Enamel Removal after Interproximal Enamel Reduction”.

Reviewer 2: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Response: In order to respond to the reviewer 2 comment, we have we have sent the manuscript to the English editing service of MDPI.

We take this opportunity to thank the recommendations and suggestions made by the reviewers to improve the document.

Yours sincerely,