Choice of Screws for Fixation of Mandibular Condyle Fractures Guided by Anthropometric Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Page 1,
- Keywords: too many keywords.
- Why do you use CAD/CAM as a key word, it does not appear in the text.
- Please remove the sign - ; - from the end of keywords list
Page 1: Introduction and Abstract: decide if you write ORIF name with or without uppercase letters (Open reduction and internal fixation or Open Reduction And Internal Fixation)
Page 2, Materials and methods: Please write first the term and after that the short form: CBCT, FBCT, etc.
Page 3: why do you write with underscore lines as: Width_neck_top, hickness_sigmoid_notch
Page 9: Please explain the short form: ACP plate
Page 10: why the authors used “cohort group” (also in the abstract). Please explain.
In the discussion part or for the presented results, the authors should emphasize the clinical relevance.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Page 1,
- Keywords: too many keywords.
the number of keywords has been reduced
- Why do you use CAD/CAM as a key word, it does not appear in the text.
keyword cad/cam has been removed
- Please remove the sign - ; - from the end of keywords list
Sign - ; - has been removed
Page 1: Introduction and Abstract: decide if you write ORIF name with or without uppercase letters (Open reduction and internal fixation or Open Reduction And Internal Fixation)
nomenclature has been unified
Page 2, Materials and methods: Please write first the term and after that the short form: CBCT, FBCT, etc.
the terms have been written
Page 3: why do you write with underscore lines as: Width_neck_top, hickness_sigmoid_notch
The nomenclature uses underscore lines because these were used in the statistics; underscore lines were used to standardize nomenclature throughout the paper
Page 9: Please explain the short form: ACP plate
The ACP plate is a type of osteosynthesis plate dedicated to the osteosynthesis of condylar process fractures (DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.11.003)
Page 10: why the authors used “cohort group” (also in the abstract). Please explain.
The term cohort gropu was used incorrectly. The terminology has been corrected
In the discussion part or for the presented results, the authors should emphasize the clinical relevance.
clinical relevance has been emphasized
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer's comment for applsci-1153783
It's an interesting topic about: Choice of screws for fixation of mandibular condyle fractures guided by antropometric data.
Reviewer's comment:
- Professional English editing is important to improve the quality of written English in this manuscript.
- Please state who performed the measurements, was there any sort of calibration and/or blinding to the operators? were there any inter or intra operator calculations?
- In the section of [Results], the raw data of all measurements (mean, SD, p value …) should be presented with Table format.
- The resolution and quality of the Figures 2 was poor.
The unit of X, Y axis in the Fig. 2, 3, 4 should be well-marked.
- In the Figure 2, the Age- related- Linear regression equations were not clear. In the section of [Discussion], the authors should explain the meaning of the Linear regression equation.
- In the third paragraph of the [Discussion], the issue of the shape, material and length of screws are correlated to the stability. Authors should briefly refer to relation between screw geometry and stability, for example in the palatal area or mandible (some relevant references are missing:)
(Tseng YC, Wu JH, Ting CC, Chen HS, Chen CM. Evaluation of mechanical strengths of three types of mini-implants in artificial bones. Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences (2017) 33, 96-101.
Tseng YC, Ting CC, Wu JH, Chen HS, Chen CM. Effect of Anchor Length on the Pullout Strength of Palatal Mini Implants. Implant Dent 2017;26:553–558)
Author Response
It's an interesting topic about: Choice of screws for fixation of mandibular condyle fractures guided by antropometric data.
Thank you very much for your kind words.
- Professional English editing is important to improve the quality of written English in this manuscript.
English editing from MDPI is in progress.
2. Please state who performed the measurements, was there any sort of calibration and/or blinding to the operators? were there any inter or intra operator calculations?
Measurements were made by a single investigator. Statistical technique based on an assessment of the ratio of between-class variance to within-class variance was used.
3. In the section of [Results], the raw data of all measurements (mean, SD, p value …) should be presented with Table format.
table has been added.
3. The resolution and quality of the Figures 2 was poor.
The unit of X, Y axis in the Fig. 2, 3, 4 should be well-marked.
Higher quality figures have been added, axis have been re-marked.
4. In the Figure 2, the Age- related- Linear regression equations were not clear. In the section of [Discussion], the authors should explain the meaning of the Linear regression equation.
equations were described and commented on in the discussion
5. In the third paragraph of the [Discussion], the issue of the shape, material and length of screws are correlated to the stability. Authors should briefly refer to relation between screw geometry and stability, for example in the palatal area or mandible (some relevant references are missing:)
(Tseng YC, Wu JH, Ting CC, Chen HS, Chen CM. Evaluation of mechanical strengths of three types of mini-implants in artificial bones. Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences (2017) 33, 96-101.
Tseng YC, Ting CC, Wu JH, Chen HS, Chen CM. Effect of Anchor Length on the Pullout Strength of Palatal Mini Implants. Implant Dent 2017;26:553–558)
It has been cited
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer's comment for applsci-1153783(Choice of screws for fixation of mandibular condyle fractures guided by antropometric data.)
The content of manuscript and figures are much improved but the order of the references seems not re-new. So, please reorder the sequence of the references to fit the order in the manuscript.
Author Response
The content of manuscript and figures are much improved
thank you for your positive feedback on the changes
but the order of the references seems not re-new. So, please reorder the sequence of the references to fit the order in the manuscript.
the sequence of references has been reordered
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
