Maxillary and Mandibular Third Molars Impaction with Associated Pathologies in a North Cyprus Population: A Retrospective Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an epidemiological survey of the impacted teeth of the 3rd molar in Northern Cyprus. 

Many of the descriptions in the Table are unclear. In addition, the discussion is generally inadequate and only states whether the number is high or low compared to previous studies. I thought further mention should be made as to the cause of such a difference in numbers. 

＜Individual findings＞

Page2 Line80: It was thought necessary to explain the Winter's classification by using a diagram. For example, how was the tooth axis of a molar determined?

Page3 Line107: Among a?

Page4 Line127: This?

It is unclear what the P-Values listed in Tables 3 and 4 are for comparison.　For example, did the P<0.05 in Table 3 test the difference between the left and right sides of Completely Impacted? It is unclear in this form of description.

Are the values listed in Tables 5 and 6 correct? For example, "76 (14%)" in Table 5 is a percentage of which number?

The significant figures of the numerical values indicating the percentages described in the text are not unified.

Author Response

Reviewer#1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors, This is an epidemiological survey of the impacted teeth of the 3rd molar in Northern Cyprus. 

We’d like to thank the reviewer for his/her kind concern and effort in reviewing our manuscript. 

Many of the descriptions in the Table are unclear. In addition, the discussion is generally inadequate and only states whether the number is high or low compared to previous studies. I thought further mention should be made as to the cause of such a difference in numbers. 

We agree with the reviewer on the issue. New table added and tables corrected. In addition to these, new sections have been added to the discussion section.

Page2 Line80: It was thought necessary to explain the Winter's classification by using a diagram. For example, how was the tooth axis of a molar determined?

We agree with the reviewer on the issue. The Axis of the teeth was measured on panoramic radiographs obtained from the patients by using a ruler and compass and added to the text.

Page3 Line107: Among a?

Corrected

Page4 Line127: This?

Corrected

It is unclear what the P-Values listed in Tables 3 and 4 are for comparison.　For example, did the P<0.05 in Table 3 test the difference between the left and right sides of Completely Impacted? It is unclear in this form of description.

We agree with the reviewer and the table was corrected as you mentioned above.

Are the values listed in Tables 5 and 6 correct? For example, "76 (14%)" in Table 5 is a percentage of which number?

For the calculations, we used the total number as it is given in table 3. The total number of completely impacted third molars was 549 and 76 of them were associated with the pathologies of pericoronitis. It makes 14%. Moreover, we corrected the table also as you mentioned above.

The significant figures of the numerical values indicating the percentages described in the text are not unified.

Corrected in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The aim of this study was to find out the incidence of impacted third molars and associated 13 pathologies in people who live in Northern Cyprus population.

The study is of scientific interest and in line with the aims of the journal. The author guidelines have been respected.

However, there are some issues that should be addressed. 

Abstract

“The aim of this sutudy” Please correct.

“department of oral and maxillofacial surgery”, please rewrite as “Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery”.

reformulate, this sentence is not clear.

Introduction

“Its prevalence; age,” please correct.

The introduction section lacks about treatment and surgery complications. (Please cite Roccuzzo et al, doi: 10.3390/app11093927; Guillaumet-Claure et al, doi: 10.4317/jced.58390)

Results

Line 107, please remove “Among a”.

Line 127, please remove “This”.

Discussion

In this study there was a bias related to the fact that the prevalence was assessed among patients who were referred to Dr. Burhan Nalbantoğlu Hospital, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery clinic. For this reason it was not possible to assert that the aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of impacted third molars among the North Cyprus population. Please, reformulate the aim of the study. Otherwise, add this concept among the study limitations.

References

Journal Articles:
1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Please correct the references acconding to the Istruction for Authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions)

Between Abbreviated Journal Name and Year, no points have to be added.

Author Response

Reviewer#2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors, this study aimed to find out the incidence of impacted third molars and associated 13 pathologies in people who live in the Northern Cyprus population.

The study is of scientific interest and in line with the aims of the journal. The author's guidelines have been respected.

We’d like to thank and express our deep gratitude to the reviewer for his/her kind concern and effort in reviewing our manuscript. 

Abstract

"The aim of this study" Please correct.

Corrected

"department of oral and maxillofacial surgery", please rewrite it as "Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery”

Corrected

reformulate, this sentence is not clear.

Corrected in the text.

Introduction

“Its prevalence; age,” please correct.

Corrected

The introduction section lacks treatment and surgery complications. (Please cite Roccuzzo et al, doi: 10.3390/app11093927; Guillaumet-Claure et al, doi: 10.4317/jced.58390)

We agree with the reviewer about treatment and surgery complications added to our text.

in the introduction part.

Results

Line 107, please remove “Among a”.

Corrected

Line 127, please remove “This”.

Corrected

Discussion

In this study, there was a bias related to the fact that the prevalence was assessed among patients who were referred to Dr. Burhan Nalbantoğlu Hospital, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery clinic. For this reason, it was not possible to assert that this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of impacted third molars among the North Cyprus population. Please, reformulate the aim of the study. Otherwise, add this concept among the study limitations.

Dr. Burhan Nalbantoğlu public hospital is the largest public hospital in North Cyprus. People who apply to state hospitals in other regions in North Cyprus due to impacted third molar problems are also directed to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department of Dr. Burhan Nalbantoğlu state hospital, which is the only one in North Cyprus. This is the reason for this study was to evaluate the prevalence of impacted third molars among the North Cyprus population.

References

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal NameYear, Volume, page range.

Please correct the references according to the Instructions for Authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions)

Between Abbreviated Journal Name and Year, no points have to be added.

Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I reviewed a manuscript entitled “Maxillary and Mandibular Third Molars Impaction with Associated Pathologies in a North Cyprus population: A Retrospective Study”. The topic was interesting, and the study was pretty well designed. I have some points for publication. I would like to ask the authors to provide information for them. First, the authors did not describe the method for patient selection exactly. I wonder if the authors considered the patients who had extracted their third molars previously. It was not mentioned in the manuscript, so it should be described. Second, periodontitis depends on the patients’ age commonly. However, the authors mentioned periodontitis, but their ages were not considered. I hope the authors to consider the patients’ ages for the periodontitis. Third, the authors divided into the right and left side for impacted teeth. I wonder if the side would be meaningful. I recommend the authors not to consider the right or left side. Fourth, the diagnosing method should be defined exactly. The authors’ mentioning is unclear, that is, the authors mentioned them as radiographically and/or surgically. More detail diagnosing methods for them should be described in detail.

Author Response

Reviewer#3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors, I reviewed a manuscript entitled “Maxillary and Mandibular Third Molars Impaction with Associated Pathologies in a North Cyprus population: A Retrospective Study”. The topic was interesting, and the study was pretty well designed.

We’d like to thank and express our deep gratitude to the reviewer for his/her kind concern and effort in reviewing our manuscript. 

First, the authors did not describe the method for patient selection exactly. I wonder if the authors considered the patients who had extracted their third molars previously. It was not mentioned in the manuscript, so it should be described. 

We agree with the reviewer on the issue. As the selection criterion, those with third molars in the panoramic radiographs taken from the patients were taken into account, and it was not considered whether they had extracted these teeth before or not.

Second, periodontitis depends on the patients’ age commonly. However, the authors mentioned periodontitis, but their ages were not considered. I hope the authors consider the patients' ages for periodontitis.

We agree with the reviewer and we add Table 6.

Third, the authors divided the right and left sides for impacted teeth. I wonder if the side would be meaningful. I recommend the authors not to consider the right or left side. 

We agree with the reviewer on the issue. However since impacted teeth were classified as right and left sides in previous studies, we also made such a classification in our study. Besides, we did not find a significant difference between the two sides.

Fourth, the diagnosing method should be defined exactly. The authors’ mentioning is unclear, that is, the authors mentioned them as radiographically and/or surgically. More detailed diagnosing methods for them should be described in detail.

We agree with the reviewer on the issue. The study is a retrospective study and classifications were made by evaluating the panoramic radiographs taken from the people who applied to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department of Dr.Burhan Nalbantoğlu state hospital, which is the only one in the state hospitals in North Cyprus due to the third molar problem.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has made some improvements.　In particular, some considerations have been added to the Discussion chapter.　However, improvements to some of the issues are inadequate.

Page3 Line92-93: A textual description of the method used was added. The readers will understand more easily if actual measurement examples are illustrated and explained.

Table 3 and Page4 Line137-138: Significant differences should have been seen only in completely impacted teeth. This description is misleading as if a significant difference was found even in partially impacted teeth.

Table 5: The "n" indicating the total number is used in many entries, causing confusion. It would be easier for readers to understand if it could be changed to a different description.

There are no uniformity at all in the description of significant figures in the text and in Table 5-8. For example, on page 5, line 170, 21.86% is listed to two decimal places, but on line 173, 14% and 21% are not listed to a decimal place. There are many such inconsistent numerical statements. I pointed out last time, but it didn't improve.

Author Response

                                                                                                                           03/06/2022

Dear Editor;

First of all, I would like to thank you very much for your kind concern about our manuscript ID applsci-1753726. All corrections were made in the MS Word program. The corrections that were made in the text are below and the changes are marked as colored texts (red) in the manuscript.

Once again, thank you very much for your kind concern.

King Regards

Corresponding Author:  Dr. Bedriye Gizem Çelebioğlu Genç

Cyprus Health and Social Sciences University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Kutlu Adalı Bulvarı, Morphou (Guzelyurt) /Mersin 10, Cyprus,

e-mail: [email protected]

The following are the changes made in the revision of the manuscript;

#Reviewer 1

This paper has made some improvements.　In particular, some considerations have been added to the Discussion chapter.　However, improvements to some of the issues are inadequate.

Page3 Line92-93: A textual description of the method used was added. The readers will understand more easily if actual measurement examples are illustrated and explained.

Figures added in the text.

Table 3 and Page4 Line137-138: Significant differences should have been seen only in completely impacted teeth. This description is misleading as if a significant difference was found even in partially impacted teeth.

Corrected in the text.

Table 5: The "n" indicating the total number is used in many entries, causing confusion. It would be easier for readers to understand if it could be changed to a different description.

Corrected in the table.

There are no uniformity at all in the description of significant figures in the text and in Table 5-8. For example, on page 5, line 170, 21.86% is listed to two decimal places, but on line 173, 14% and 21% are not listed to a decimal place. There are many such inconsistent numerical statements. I pointed out last time, but it didn't improve.

Corrected in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx