Orthodontic Surgical Treatment of Impacted Mandibular Canines: Systematic Review and Case Report
, Vincenzo Carpentiere 1,†, Fabio Piras 1, Anna Netti 1, Irene Ferrara 1, Mariagrazia Campanelli 1, Giulia Latini 1, Fabio Viapiano 1, Stefania Costa 1, Giuseppina Malcangi 1, Assunta Patano 1, Sabino Ceci 1, Antonio Mancini 1, Carlo Lucia 1, Antonio Scarano 2, Felice Lorusso 2, Andrea Palermo 3, Anna Maria Ciocia 1, Francesco Inchingolo 1,*, Biagio Rapone 1,*, Angelo Michele Inchingolo 1,‡, Daniela Di Venere 1,‡ and Gianna Dipalma 1,‡add
Show full author list
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
the article covers a very interesting topic and I support its publication.
Some auto-citation is detectable and little off-topic. Nevertheless I suggest some changes in order to improve the overall quality of the manuscript for the readers.
1) Table 2:
please update Criteria exSclusion to: exclusion criteria (remove the ’S’).
2) Line 104: “written articles were eliminated from consideration”
This sentence should be rephrased in correct english.
Something like:
“The exclusion criteria (Table 2) were: studies on patients with genetic syndromes and severe facial malformations, systematic literature reviews and letters to the editor, non-English articles”.
3) In the prisma chart of a systematic review the number of retrieved articles for every database shall be outlined in the first part of the chart. Please outline how many articles were retrieved from Pubmed, how many from Scopus, from WOS etc.
4) In the prisma chart you move from 48 to 46 but on the right there is n=0. Please explain or update.
5) In the prisma chart the author mentioned 238=off topic and 10=full text not available. But then, after the assessment for eligibility (n=46) other 6 (reason 2) were marked as “full text not available”. Can the authors elaborate this? Weren’t the full-text already been retreived?
6) Line 123: Again, please explain why from 48 to 46.
7) A risk o bias assessment (table) shall be made in a systematic review.
Check http://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.bias/files/uploads/6.%20Assessing%20risk%20of%20bias%20in%20included%20studies%20v1.0%20Standard%20author%20slides.pdf
At least add a column to the main table named “risk of bias”. For every paper add which bias could have influenced the results of every paper included.
Something like “not blinded selection” etc.
8) Line 162:
The authors wrote:
“There are two guided eruption techniques towards the centre of the alveolar ridge. A mode in eruption called closed and a mode in eruption called open.”
The readers could benefit from a wider introduction to the topic of guided eruption techniques in orthodontics.
The authors could add a sentence before like:
“Guided eruption techniques have several benefits in dentistry. They can be used in several aspects such as tissue regeneration either in lingual (you could cite PMID: 19350058), or conventional mechanics (you could cite DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2015.09.009” and for impacted teeth. A mode in eruption called closed (ADD a reference please CRESCINI et al.????) and a mode in eruption called open (add a reference please).”
9) I would ask a proofreader to check manuscript's english language
Author Response
REVIEWER 1:
Dear authors,
the article covers a very interesting topic and I support its publication.
Some auto-citation is detectable and little off-topic. Nevertheless I suggest some changes in order to improve the overall quality of the manuscript for the readers.
1) Table 2:
please update Criteria exSclusion to: exclusion criteria (remove the ’S’).
DONE
2) Line 104: “written articles were eliminated from consideration”
This sentence should be rephrased in correct english.
Something like:
“The exclusion criteria (Table 2) were: studies on patients with genetic syndromes and severe facial malformations, systematic literature reviews and letters to the editor, non-English articles”.
DONE
3) In the prisma chart of a systematic review the number of retrieved articles for every database shall be outlined in the first part of the chart. Please outline how many articles were retrieved from Pubmed, how many from Scopus, from WOS etc.
It has been added in the flowchart
4) In the prisma chart you move from 48 to 46 but on the right there is n=0. Please explain or update.
There was an error, it has been corrected.
5) In the prisma chart the author mentioned 238=off topic and 10=full text not available. But then, after the assessment for eligibility (n=46) other 6 (reason 2) were marked as “full text not available”. Can the authors elaborate this? Weren’t the full-text already been retreived?
The electronic database and manual search output retrieved a total of 536 manuscripts (Scopus N = 292, PubMed N = 121, Web of Science N = 109, Cochrane N = 14); a total of 240 duplicates were removed. After initial screening, a total of 296 manuscripts were considered. Eligibility assessment was conducted on 46 articles because 238 articles were off-topic and 12 did not present full-text avaiable. After reading the full-texts, 11 articles were selected for qualitative synthesis.
6) Line 123: Again, please explain why from 48 to 46. There was an error, it has been corrected.
7) A risk o bias assessment (table) shall be made in a systematic review.
Check http://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.bias/files/uploads/6.%20Assessing%20risk%20of%20bias%20in%20included%20studies%20v1.0%20Standard%20author%20slides.pdf
At least add a column to the main table named “risk of bias”. For every paper add which bias could have influenced the results of every paper included.
Something like “not blinded selection” etc.
The risk of bias assessment has been added to the research.
The methodologies and results have been updated according to the risk of bias findings. The tab. 4 has been improved.
8) Line 162:
The authors wrote:
“There are two guided eruption techniques towards the centre of the alveolar ridge. A mode in eruption called closed and a mode in eruption called open.”
The readers could benefit from a wider introduction to the topic of guided eruption techniques in orthodontics.
The authors could add a sentence before like:
“Guided eruption techniques have several benefits in dentistry. They can be used in several aspects such as tissue regeneration either in lingual (you could cite PMID: 19350058), or conventional mechanics (you could cite DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2015.09.009” and for impacted teeth. A mode in eruption called closed (ADD a reference please CRESCINI et al.????) and a mode in eruption called open (add a reference please).”
DONE
9) I would ask a proofreader to check manuscript's english language.
DONE
Reviewer 2 Report
A very good manuscript.
The aim of the study is clear.
The methodology is very good and the case treated is interesting.
The title of the article is appropriately selected and denotes the study performed.
The references are recent, relevant, appropriate and in addition to this are well written and arranged.
The authors reviewed well what is already written and investigated in their “Included Mandibular canines”. Their research question was clear.
I have only two comments:
1- A final editing is needed to figure out very minor mistakes.
2- In line 191&192 the authors stated that “All teeth are erupted with the exception of the 191 permanent canines. Please check Fig. 6?!
Thanks all
Author Response
REVIEWER 2:
A very good manuscript.
The aim of the study is clear.
The methodology is very good and the case treated is interesting.
The title of the article is appropriately selected and denotes the study performed.
The references are recent, relevant, appropriate and in addition to this are well written and arranged.
The authors reviewed well what is already written and investigated in their “Included Mandibular canines”. Their research question was clear.
I have only two comments:
- A final editing is needed to figure out very minor mistakes.
DONE
- In line 191&192 the authors stated that “All teeth are erupted with the exception of the 191 permanent canines. Please check Fig. 6?
The phrase has been corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Congratulations of the work you have done and presented in this manuscript. In my opinion after some modifications your job can be published. Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER 3:
Dear authors,
Congratulations of the work you have done and presented in this manuscript. In my opinion after some modifications your job can be published. Please see the attachment.
We reported your suggestions in this file word and we modified the submitted article in word
- Title is very confusing. ( included/impacted mandibular canines) I would suggest to remove case report
Title has been modified: Orthodontic surgical treatment of included mandibular canines: systematic review and a case report.
- Abstract section doesn't meet the required standards. more info regarding methodology and results are required. In conclusion you are talking about transmigration, this is not specified anywhere in the previous text.
It has been modified
- Introduction
In my opinion this section is too short. This section should present very recent, state-of-the-art infos related to the subject.
It has been improved
Aim of the study should be written at the end of the section.
DONE
- I would suggest to add a flow chart related to the search strategy in this section, not in the results section, to increase the visibility for the general reader. Everything else looks good in this section.
It has been added in the study selection section. In addition, the risk of bias assessment has been added to the research. The methodologies and results have been updated according to the risk of bias findings. The tab. 4 has been improved.
- I believe that this clinical case will look much better if you present it in the material and method and results section
Case report has been presented after results section
- Please specify Angle classification line 192
DONE
- Conclusions are not supported by your results
Conclusion has been modified
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have fulfilled all the suggested improvements.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version of the manuscript is improved a lot. I have no further comments. Congratulations!
