Evaluation of the Influence of Vestibular Surface Morphology Variability of Maxillary Incisors on Torque: Examination Using 3D Intraoral Scans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your excellent article and hard work.

I have a few questions.

 

In the introduction, you stated that the purpose of the study was to “apply intraoral scanners” and determine the effect of CrVS on torque.

1. In line 169, a value (6.9 µm) was presented showing that the accuracy of trios 3 is very high. Please provide a paper supporting this.

2. Comparing torque value from your study with those of Miethke and Melsen, Kong et al will help justify the methods you used.

3. In result table3, what did you want to compare using the ANOVA test? If the p value is significant, it seems necessary to perform post hoc analysis.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your insightful comments and constructive feedback regarding our manuscript. Your suggestions provide us with a valuable opportunity to enhance the quality and depth of our study.

1. In response to your query concerning the accuracy of the Trios 3 intraoral scanner, as mentioned in line 169 of our manuscript, we have now included a pertinent citation to support this claim.

2. In the research conducted by Melsen and Miethke, the reference point of torque measurement was entirely different comparing to our study, and the data was graphically represented. Consequently, a direct comparison of the results to our findings is not feasible. Pertaining to the studies by Kong et al., a detailed elucidation of their methodology for presenting torque values is imperative. Without this clarification, the readers might find it challenging to understand the correlation between the results reported by Kong et al. and those of our study.

3. Thank you for your valuable feedback. In light of your suggestion, we have conducted a post hoc analysis to further investigate the significant findings indicated by the ANOVA. The article has been updated to include these post hoc analysis results, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the data. We appreciate your insightful recommendation, which has enhanced the depth and clarity of our findings.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting article for any orthodontist. Well done research. But one question, please show us that how did you determine the sample size? 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your insightful comment regarding our manuscript. 

The sample size for our study based on the prior research methodology applied in the discussed field. Kong et al. examined 77 central incisors and 68 lateral incisors, Loenen studied 81 central incisors, while Miethke and Melsen analyzed 26 central and 24 lateral incisors Considering these precedents, we opted to include 100 central and 100 lateral incisors in our study to ensure a robust and comparative analysis.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have read the manuscript with interest and some questions raised. Enlisted please find my comments.

・In the Materials and Methods, as noted in your citation, bracket height is a factor that strongly affects torque and should be strictly defined. In this study, bracket height was uniformly determined using the distance from the incisal edge. However, as is known, there is also large individual variation in tooth long-axis size. In the present sample, variations in tooth size may have changed the relative bracket height on the crown and affected the results. In other words, GI distance may be an important data to consider for the present results and should be disclosed.

・In the discussion, I fully agree with the strategy of using indirect bonding as a countermeasure to CrVS variations. In addition, please discuss the existence of preformed bracket with a certain curvature given to the base surface and that treatment with custom-made aligners is an important treatment strategy to avoid errors due to variations in morphology because they are designed to fit individual crown morphology.

・you miss typed in line 72 filing, line 295 T he.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor spelling errors were detected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your insightful comments and constructive feedback regarding our manuscript. Your suggestions provide us with a valuable opportunity to enhance the quality and depth of our study.

1) Certainly observation regarding the potential impact of tooth size on relative bracket height and its subsequent effect on torque is duly noted. As mentioned, individual variations in tooth long-axis size may indeed influence the vestibular surface morphology. However, our study, which examined one hundred central and one hundred lateral incisors, did not specifically stratify the sample based on tooth height. Therefore, while the distribution of tooth heights within our sample is random, it does not facilitate a detailed analysis of how incisor height might affect vestibular surface morphology. This limitation precludes drawing definitive conclusions in this regard. For your reference and further analysis, we have included the data on GI measurements for the studied sample in the attached file.

2) As per your suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the discussion of our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please add sample size calculation method which you used in manuscript.

2. Sample of 50 subjects with unequal distribution between the sexes seems like a limitation of the study, it should be mentioned in limitation sections. 

3. in row 95 the first word The has an excess space, please check and correct

4. Conclusion should be shorter and more concise. Part of the conclusion part can be moved to the discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your insightful comments and constructive feedback regarding our manuscript. Your suggestions provide us with a valuable opportunity to enhance the quality and depth of our study.

1) The sample size for our study based on the prior research methodology applied in the discussed field. Kong et al. examined 77 central incisors and 68 lateral incisors, Loenen studied 81 central incisors, while Miethke and Melsen analyzed 26 central and 24 lateral incisors Considering these precedents, we opted to include 100 central and 100 lateral incisors in our study to ensure a robust and comparative analysis.

2) The unequal distribution between the sexes, while reflective of the distribution found in orthodontic practices, may still be considered a limitation of the study and should be taken into account when interpreting the results, therefore this information is placed in the revised manuscript.

3) We have carefully reviewed line 95 of the manuscript and were unable to identify any excess space. It appears that the perceived excessive spacing may be a result of the document's formatting.

4)  We have judiciously excised a portion of the conclusion. This action was taken with careful consideration, as the conclusion directly addresses the primary aim of our study. We believe that relocating any paragraph of the conclusion to the discussion section might dilute its impact and detract from the preciseness of the aim's addressal. We appreciate the suggestion and hope this clarification underscores our rationale.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am glad to see that the Authors corrected the key issues in the manuscript, thus improving its quality.

Best of luck in future research.