Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Rada Kazakova 1,2,*,
  • Georgi Tomov 3,4 and
  • Saverio Capodiferro 6,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anna Turkina Reviewer 3: Hrvoje Brkić Reviewer 4: Yukinori Maruo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear Author,

 

The theory and concept of the examination are interesting, the topic is up-to-date.  The work is relevant and provides useful findings.

 

These new results can help to use the knowledge, it might be useful for the everyday practice. I suggest you to continue this work to get more data from the investigated cases and come up with more statistical analysis.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for appreciating our work. We will continue expanding our research, and we hope it can be beneficial for our colleagues. Thank you for your review and advice.

 

Kind regards,

The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The topic of the manuscript fits the journal’s aim and scope. The clinical study is interesting and clearly described. The main strength of the study is relatively big sample. From the other side, the study was performed without control group, so the conclusions are poorly supported by the study design. To address this issue the authors may add to Discussion section more references related to gingivectomy provided by different methods and compare the obtained results with previously published data.

Furthermore, several revisions may be provided to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1.       Abstract. Abstract should be structured. Please, clearly present in the abstract aim, methods, results and conclusion. Currently in the abstract section 9 outcomes are listed (recovery time of the gingiva, possibility to take the impression at the same visit, duration of the manipulation, bleeding during the procedure, tissue adherence to the instrument, postoperative hemorrhage on probing, postoperative pain and wound healing in regard to tissue color, tissue contour and appearance of the wound). But only the healing process is described as a result. Conclusion is also absent.

2.       Key words. The study is devoted to laser surgery,  but in the key words contain low-level laser therapy; photoactivated disinfection; photobiomodulation; photodynamic therapy, but not the laser gingivectomy.

3.       In the Introduction section it is mentioned, that numerous studies demonstrate the positive effect of adjunctive therapy – low-level 105 laser therapy (LLLT) and photoactivated disinfection (PAD) (lines 105-106), but within the present study the authors did not use these methods. May be, there is no sense to mention LLT and PAD in the Introduction and Discussion.

4.       In the introduction section pleas highlight the novelty and clinical significance of your study.

5.       In the Results section please provide patients’ demographic data and patient flow diagram.

6.       In the Discussion section it would be better to compare the obtained results with the previously published data (not only laser surgery, but conventional surgery and electrosurgery as well).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for thoroughly reading our article and for your advice. We hope you like our research, as we have put a lot of effort into it and consider the current data on the topic scarce.

We followed each one of your suggestions. We added more references to the discussion section. The data in the existing literature on the topic is scarce/non-existent, that is why we compared our findings with similar researches, but not the same.

  1. We edited the abstract following your instructions.
  2. You are right about the key words, we edited them.
  3. Thank you for noticing that we pointed out the positive effect of LLLT, apart from the surgical lasers use. We wanted the readers (clinicians) to be informed that it can be used as adjunctive laser therapy after conventional or laser gingivectomy.
  4. You are right, we did not stress it out enough. We highlighted the novelty.
  5. We corrected that.
  6. Thank you for your kind remark. As literature sources are scarce, we compared our results with the existing research. The only similar existing research about electrocautery gingivectomy was cited several times in our research. Interestingly for us, literature sources on healing after traditional gingivectomy was scarce, as well. However, we found more data to add to our discussion section.

 

Thank you again for your thoughtful review.

 

Kind regards,

The Authors

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This study is a clinical pilot research that investigates the effects following removal of excessive gingival tissue, which is often necessary in fixed prosthodontic cases.

The aim of the study is to assess gingival healing after diode laser gingivectomy prior to prosthetic procedures. Healing process of the

gingiva after diode laser gingivectomy of 41 teeth was assessed. The research was written as a scientific paper without statistical analysis, but with descriptive analysis.

The results are presented tabularly (7 tables) and accompanied by figures (8 figures). The authors use 46 references from the literature, of which over 10% are recent.

Recommendation for citation: Radović, Mirna, et al. "Clinical Prospective Assessment of Genotoxic Effects of Dental Implants in Gingival Epithelial Cells." Acta stomatol Croati. 2022;56(3):222-234. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc56/3/1.

The manuscript is written correctly with minor ambiguities in the English language, and I suggest that it be proofread by a native speaker.

After the mentioned suggestions, I suggest the editor to accept the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for reading our work carefully. We read the article you suggested, and we definitely consider it very useful and relevant to the topic. We added it to our discussion and bibliography. Proofreading was performed as suggested. We thank you for accepting our article and appreciate your help.

 

Kind regards,

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

This article was the effect of laser treatment on subsequent mucosal healing for implant prosthesis, and a well-designed to attract the journal readers. But there are some minor defects need to revised. There are problems with the quality of intraoral photographs, which are the most important in case reports. The higher quality photographs including high resolution, camera angle and position, color tone need to be provided. In gingivoplasty, preoperative examination of the surrounding alveolar bone level is very important because it also affects the post-healing morphology of the gingiva. So pre- and postoperative radiographs should be provided. Please provide Ethical Review Committee approval number.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for thoroughly reading our article and for your advice. We hope you like our research, as we have put a lot of effort into it and consider the current data on the topic scarce. All the intraoral photographs that we took are of the same quality. We added them to the article, so that the clinicians can visualize the different stages of healing. We did not perform pre- and postoperative radiographs when we did the gingivectomy, as we did not interfere with the bone in any way. Nevertheless, we understand your point and will do this with our future research. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Committee of Scientific Ethics at Medical University – Plovdiv, reference number P-7350/01.10.2015. All the patients signed an informed consent, which we sent to MDPI. Thank you again for your thoughtful review.

 

Kind regards,

The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all the comments and provided the text editining. The manuscript is publishable without further revisions.