Effect of Genetic and Environmental Factors on the Impaction of Lower Third Molars
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very well organized manuscript. It adds new informations to International literature. It could be published in the present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the revision of the manuscript and your support.
Kind regards,
Dr. Giedrė Trakinienė
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript entitled: “Effect of genetic and environmental factors on the impaction of lower third molars”, the authors identified the the impact of genetic and environmental factors on the impaction of lower third molars
The authors found that the most fitting model for the angulations of lower third molars was AE, where the additive genetic factors had up to 88 % of influence and specific environment up to 27%. Therefore, the ACE model showed higher significance for the lower third molar eruption level where additive genetic estimates reached 71%, a specific environment contributed up to 15% and the common environment reached 32%.
The authors concluded that considerable proportion of the third molar impaction could be attributed to additive genetic effects and common environment, whereas the specific environment had a less, but significant impact.
Major comments:
In general, the idea and innovation of this study, regards analysis of environmental factors of third molar is interesting, because the role of these aspects in dentistry are validated but further studies on this topic could be an innovative issue in this field could be open a creative matter of debate in literature by adding new information. Moreover, there are few reports in the literature that studied this interesting topic with this kind of study design.
The study was well conducted by the authors; However, there are some concerns to revise that are described below.
The introduction section resumes the existing knowledge regarding the important factor linked with impact of third molar eruption and management.
However, as the importance of the topic, the reviewer strongly recommends, before a further re-evaluation of the manuscript, to update the literature through read, discuss and must cites in the references with great attention all of those 3 recent interesting articles, that helps the authors to better introduce and discuss the role of casues of third molar impaction and on third molar management and inflammatory mediators: 1) Perillo L, Isola G, Esercizio D, Iovane M, Triolo G, Matarese G. Differences in craniofacial characteristics in Southern Italian children from Naples: a retrospective study by cephalometric analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2013 Sep;14(3):195-8. 2) Isola G, Polizzi A, Alibrandi A, Williams RC, Leonardi R. Independent impact of periodontitis and cardiovascular disease on elevated soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels. J Periodontol. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1002/JPER.20-0242. 3) Isola G, Matarese M, Ramaglia L, Cicciù M, Matarese G. Evaluation of the efficacy of celecoxib and ibuprofen on postoperative pain, swelling, and mouth opening after surgical removal of impacted third molars: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Oct;48(10):1348-1354. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.02.006.
The authors should be better specified, at the end of the introduction section, the rational of the study and the aim of the study. In the material and methods section, should better clarify number of clinicians involved in literature search and the risk of bias.
The discussion section appears well organized with the relevant paper that support the conclusions, even if the authors should better discuss the relationship between inflammation and impacted third molars (especially COXIB drugs). The conclusion should reinforce in light of the discussions.
In conclusion, I am sure that the authors are fine clinicians who achieve very nice results with their adopted protocol. However, this study, in my view does not in its current form satisfy a very high scientific requirement for publication in this journal and requests a revision before a futher re-evaluation of the manuscript.
Minor Comments:
Abstract:
- Better formulate the abstract section by better describing the aim of the study
Introduction:
- Please refer to major comments
Discussion
- Please add a specific sentence that clarifies the results obtained in the first part of the discussion
- Page 8 last paragraph: Please reorganize this paragraph that is not clear
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the revision of the manuscript and your useful comments. We have made several changes in the manuscript according to your recommendations. I hope, this time everything will fulfill the requirements of this prestigious journal.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
Kind regards,
Dr. Giedrė Trakinienė
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is well written and scientifically sound, but some minor issue should be clarified
In material and method please define how A.A. assessed good plaster model and good quality digital panoramic radiographs.
Were the operators experts or previously instructed ?
Which panoramic radiographs did A.A. used ? Please describe it in text
Please, check the references for formatting errors.
Please arrange tab 3 to be more readable. (Ex same character and no returning)
The discussion section should be expanded commenting more the findings of this paper. (ex commenting the p value and the Pearson correlation of the data and the relevance on the results evaluation)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the revision of the manuscript and your useful comments. We have made several changes in the manuscript according to your recommendations. I hope, this time everything will fulfill the requirements of this prestigious journal.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
Kind regards,
Dr. Giedrė Trakinienė
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Introduction. Various techniques have been reported in literature which are able to minimize the complications related to the extraction of a lower impacted third molar. Some examples are orthodontic extraction (doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.06.686. ; doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.015.) and coronectomy (doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.07.006. ; doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.09.011). For completeness and clarification, these techniques should at least be mentioned or later discussed.
Introduction. Are the authors sure that the lack of space for eruption has to be considered a "dental reason"?
Introduction. Regarding the sentence "Thus, the prophylactic removal of these teeth without any pathology does not have sense", are the authors sure that a prophylactic removal before root formation doesn't have sense?
M&M. References regarding Baccetti's methods are not formatted (Chapter 2.1, page 3).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the revision of the manuscript and your useful comments. We have made several changes in the manuscript according to your recommendations. I hope, this time everything will fulfill the requirements of this prestigious journal.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
Kind regards,
Dr. Giedrė Trakinienė
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
There are no further comments
