Digital Analysis Using 3D Intraoral Scanner on Gingival Contour Changes Following the Roll Flap Technique
Tiago Marques
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Digital Analysis using 3D intraoral scanner on Gingival Contour changes Following the Roll Flap Technique” is a very interesting case report on a current topic. The reviewer has some suggestions and comments on the paper.
In the abstract, please write a running text without indicating the subtopics: background/aim, results, and conclusion.
In the background of the abstract, please state the importance of evaluating changes in gingival contour.
In the introduction, the following sentence: “Mean 27 width reduction of alveolar ridge was 29-63% at 6 months, mean height reduction of alveolar ridge was 11-22% at 6 months” appears to be the results of the study. If it is a result, it should be placed in the result's section, but if it is a result of other studies, the citation should be included.
In the introduction, please correct the references, some are before and some are after the punctuation, they should all be before the periods and commas.
Do not use tables in the introduction, please only add the types of techniques in the text.
In the introduction, the authors explored and explained in detail the techniques for soft tissue grafting. However, the 3D intraoral scanning part was barely explored. Please add information about the differences between intraoral 3D scan and other techniques for evaluating changes in gingival contour. What are the benefits of scanning? Why should it be used instead of other techniques?
There are abbreviations in the text and in figure 1 such as (Pre-OP) that need to be written out in full the first time they appear in the paper.
The number sequence of the figures does not follow a logical order.
In the abstract, the longest follow-up period is 4 months. However, the registration number of the ethics committee of the Institutional Review Board of Kyungpook National 77 University Dental Hospital is dated 2025. Were the cases performed prior to approval by the ethics committee? If so, it's inappropriate.
Topic 2.3 on the surgical protocol is confusing, and the information is repeated in the case descriptions. Please only detail the surgical protocol in the case descriptions.
In the figures on line 129 and 131, please describe in more detail how the gray figures were obtained and how the soft tissue volume gains were measured.
Please describe in each case what type, length, diameter, and brand of implant was installed.
Please follow the same pattern for the presentation of the illustration of the measurement of increased soft tissue volume for the different cases.
Were the surgical procedures performed by the same surgeon? Were the data evaluated by a calibrated researcher? Please add this information.
In the following sentence (lines 205-206): “The importance of mucosal thickness around implants has been demonstrated in 205 many studies”, please add references.
In the discussion, some paragraphs are too short, while others have several sentences, please revise the text.
The authors have compared the intra-oral scan with the periodontal probe to assess the reliability of the scan? The suggested digital scanning technique to evaluate changes soft tissue should be compared to the gold standard (periodontal probe) or if other studies have already evaluated this reliability, the authors should present references that support the use of scanning for this analysis.
In the different cases presented, according to the results there were different changes in soft tissue volume. The authors are encouraged to add a discussion on this topic.
Did the authors use reference points for the scanning?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease, proofread the text with a native English speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe most significant weakness is the extremely small sample size (n=3). With only three patients, it is impossible to draw any statistically significant conclusions or generalize the findings to a larger population. The results are only indicative at best.
- While 3D scanners offer objective data, the selection of the five measurement sites (mesial, mesio-middle, mid, disto-middle, distal) appears somewhat arbitrary. There's no clear justification for why these specific sites were chosen, and it introduces a degree of subjectivity. A more standardized and reproducible method for site selection is needed.
How could the authors make sure the measurements were consistently done on the same spot?
- The use of two different roll techniques (modified and roll-in-envelope) further complicates the analysis. The paper acknowledges that the modified roll technique was used in two cases and the roll-in-envelope technique in one case, but it doesn't adequately address the potential impact of these different techniques on the results.
- The conclusion mentions the importance of sufficient palatal mucosal thickness, but the paper doesn't describe how this was assessed or whether it was considered as a variable in the analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis contribution described the use of a 3D intraoral scan to evaluate the amount of buccal gingival contour changes following implant surgery with simultaneous roll technique on Seibert class I defects. The authors have reported three cases in this study. The authors concluded that a 3D scanner is suitable for assessing small changes, making it an ideal method for determining gingival contour changes.
A few questions need to be resolved before further consideration.
- Line 108 and others to describe the other case's history. The authors should consult a native English speaker regarding " before 5 months". Should it be "5 months before"?
- The authors should discuss the likely errors, resolution, or limitations of using intraoral dental scan instruments.
See question 1.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Here attached you can find my comments
regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “Digital Analysis using 3D intraoral scanner on Gingival Contour changes Following the Roll Flap Technique” was corrected by the authors according to the reviewer's suggestions. However, there are still some shortcomings that need to be improved.
In the introduction, for the following sentence: “Mean width reduction of alveolar ridge was 29-63% at 6 months, mean height reduction of alveolar ridge was 11-22% at 6 months” (lines 26-27). The reference 1 must be placed in the end of this sentence. In addition, this sentence must be rewritten, as it still seems to be the result of this research. Please, rewrite as follows: According to a systematic review of the literature, when assessing the magnitude of dimensional changes of both the hard and soft tissues of the alveolar ridge up to 12 months following tooth extraction in humans, the results showed an average reduction in the width of the alveolar ridge of 29 to 63% in 6 months, while for the height of the alveolar ridge the average reduction was 11 to 22% in 6 months [1].
In paragraph 2 and 3 of the introduction, some terms are capitalized, such as Bucco-lingual, Apico-lingual, and Roll technique, please lowercase them and correct typos.
I keep my opinion, in the introduction you need to explore what is being studied, not only the surgical technique, but also the method for evaluating changes in gingival contour.
There are still abbreviations in figure 1, such as (Pre-OP), which need to be written out in full. My suggestion is to include the abbreviations and their meanings in the figure legend.
Please add in the manuscript, for each case, what type, length, diameter, and brand of implant was installed.
Please rewrite the following sentence: “The surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon, and the data were evaluated by a single calibrated researcher.” Suggestion: For the 3 cases, the surgical procedures were performed by the same surgeon, and the data was also evaluated by one calibrated investigator.
Please correct typos throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Comments 1: In the introduction, for the following sentence: “Mean width reduction of alveolar ridge was 29-63% at 6 months, mean height reduction of alveolar ridge was 11-22% at 6 months” (lines 26-27). The reference 1 must be placed in the end of this sentence. In addition, this sentence must be rewritten, as it still seems to be the result of this research. Please, rewrite as follows: According to a systematic review of the literature, when assessing the magnitude of dimensional changes of both the hard and soft tissues of the alveolar ridge up to 12 months following tooth extraction in humans, the results showed an average reduction in the width of the alveolar ridge of 29 to 63% in 6 months, while for the height of the alveolar ridge the average reduction was 11 to 22% in 6 months [1].
Response 1: I have changed the introduction
Comments 2: In paragraph 2 and 3 of the introduction, some terms are capitalized, such as Bucco-lingual, Apico-lingual, and Roll technique, please lowercase them and correct typos.
Respons 2: I lowered the capitalized words and corrected typos
Comments 3: I keep my opinion, in the introduction you need to explore what is being studied, not only the surgical technique, but also the method for evaluating changes in gingival contour.
Response 3: I added in the introduction about the method, thank you
Comments 4: There are still abbreviations in figure 1, such as (Pre-OP), which need to be written out in full. My suggestion is to include the abbreviations and their meanings in the figure legend.
Response 4: I put the abbreviations and meaning in the figure legend
Comments 5: Please add in the manuscript, for each case, what type, length, diameter, and brand of implant was installed.
Response 5: I added in the manuscript about the implant type
Comments 6: Please rewrite the following sentence: “The surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon, and the data were evaluated by a single calibrated researcher.” Suggestion: For the 3 cases, the surgical procedures were performed by the same surgeon, and the data was also evaluated by one calibrated investigator.
Response 6: I rewrote the sentence
Comments 7: Please correct typos throughout the manuscript
Response 7: I corrected typos, thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept for publishing
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate the acceptance of my paper. Thank you for recognizing the value of my research and providing me with the opportunity to contribute to Applied sciences. I am truly grateful for your time and effort in reviewing my work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed the issues raised in the earlier submission.
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate the acceptance of my paper. Thank you for recognizing the value of my research and providing me with the opportunity to contribute to Applied sciences. I am truly grateful for your time and effort in reviewing my work.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for the improvements, paper should be published in this form
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate the acceptance of my paper. Thank you for recognizing the value of my research and providing me with the opportunity to contribute to Applied sciences. I am truly grateful for your time and effort in reviewing my work.
