Tooth Whitening or Bleaching to Optimise the White Colour of the Teeth in Orthodontics?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Peer Review
Tooth Whitening or Bleaching to Optimize the White Color of the Teeth in Orthodontics
- Overall Evaluation
The manuscript presents an interesting topic, in the form of a systematic review and a network meta-analysis on tooth whitening methods, with an emphasis on light and laser activation in orthodontics.
The paper covers a wide area of ​​the literature, but there are some methodological and structural issues.
- Strengths
2.1 The topic is original and relatively little discussed.
2.2 Several types of studies (systematic reviews, clinical studies, in vitro studies) were studied, analyzing LED, halogen, laser (blue, infrared, etc.) technologies.
2.3 The conclusions formulated are clinically useful
- Major problems (required to be corrected)
3.1 The paper does not have a clear and reproducible methodology. The PRISMA diagram, search strategy (databases, keywords), clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, assessment of the risk of bias, description of the statistical method for meta-analysis are not presented
For scientific validity, it is necessary to introduce “methods” according to the PRISMA guide.
3.2 Different types of studies are combined in the presentation of the results, which may lead to biased conclusions.
3.3 Network meta-analysis is not demonstrated, the study is more like a systematic review
4.3 Introducing comparative tables, graphs would be useful
4.4 References – formatting should be reviewed
- Specific comments
- The discussion repeats the results, consequently an interpretation of the results is necessary.
- Formulation of a Conclusions section
- Final recommendation
The paper has potential, but requires: Major revision
- methodological clarification
- reorganization
Comments on the Quality of English Language
-
Author Response
Tooth Whitening or Bleaching to Optimize the White Color of the Teeth in Orthodontics
- Overall Evaluation
The manuscript presents an interesting topic, in the form of a systematic review and a network meta-analysis on tooth whitening methods, with an emphasis on light and laser activation in orthodontics.
The paper covers a wide area of ​​the literature, but there are some methodological and structural issues.
- Strengths
2.1 The topic is original and relatively little discussed.
2.2 Several types of studies (systematic reviews, clinical studies, in vitro studies) were studied, analyzing LED, halogen, laser (blue, infrared, etc.) technologies.
2.3 The conclusions formulated are clinically useful
- Major problems (required to be corrected)
3.1 The paper does not have a clear and reproducible methodology. The PRISMA diagram, search strategy (databases, keywords), clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, assessment of the risk of bias, description of the statistical method for meta-analysis are not presented
For scientific validity, it is necessary to introduce “methods” according to the PRISMA
Answers: 3.1 The paper does not have a clear and reproducible methodology. The PRISMA diagram, search strategy (databases, keywords), clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, assessment of the risk of bias, description of the statistical method for meta-analysis are not presented
For scientific validity, it is necessary to introduce “methods” according to the PRISMA guide.
3.2 Different types of studies are combined in the presentation of the results, which may lead to biased conclusions.
Answers: 3.2 Different types of studies are combined in the presentation of the results, which may lead to biased conclusions.
We would like to say, that our article is overview comparative study of kinds bleaching procedures.
3.3 Network meta-analysis is not demonstrated, the study is more like a systematic review
Answers: 3.3. Multi- stage analytical approach was employed. The text is part of our methods (be so kind and see abstract.
4.3 Introducing comparative tables, graphs would be useful
Answer: 4:3 All our literature reference provides enough information about our problematic in a form text, graph and tables (See manuscript).
4.4 References – formatting should be reviewed
Answers :4.4. Formatting of reference was provided
5. Specific comments
The discussion repeats the results, consequently an interpretation of the results is necessary.
Formulation of a Conclusions section
Answer: 5 The discussion and conclusions were modified according your arguments
6. Final recommendation
The paper has potential, but requires: Major revision, methodological clarification reorganization.
Answer: 6. We prepared major revision, methodological clarification and etc.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
After explaining the mechanism of action of hydrogen peroxide and the factors that affect whitening effects, a brief explanation can be given of the specific evidence provided by references [4,5], such as whether they are a review on the basis of whitening agents or a study on color evaluation standards, to enhance the coherence and basis of the discussion.
2. In section 1.1.7 In the "Clinical Evaluation of Home Whitening Strategies" section, the conclusion states that the G1 and G4 groups have higher satisfaction, but there is no correlation analysis with objective color change data such as "Δ E" or "Δ SGU".
3. In section 1.1.8 The section on "Factors Predicting Whitening Effect and Tooth Sensitivity" mentions the independent and dependent variables of the analysis, but does not explicitly provide the key findings of this study. four
When summarizing the main findings of the "Umbrella Review" (Section 1.1.1), the first conclusion "There is no consistent difference between the whitening gel concentration and the color improvement" may be too absolute.
The methodology section mentions the implementation of multi-stage analysis methods and outlines the sources of evidence, but does not provide detailed criteria and processes for literature search, screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation. six
The results section mentions that 'data from 28 systematic reviews were evaluated', but does not present basic information about these reviews in the form of tables or clear lists (such as authors, years, number of included studies, main conclusions).
7. The discussion section points out that laser assisted methods (especially blue light and near-infrared lasers) can significantly accelerate the whitening process, but does not fully discuss the potential mechanisms related to this conclusion or the specific advantage data compared to other light activated systems (such as halogen lamps, LEDs).
Author Response
Reviewer 2
1.After explaining the mechanism of action of hydrogen peroxide and the factors that affect whitening effects, a brief explanation can be given of the specific evidence provided by references [4,5], such as whether they are a review on the basis of whitening agents or a study on color evaluation standards, to enhance the coherence and basis of the discussion.
The explanation of this questions is now part of introduction (page 2 - Paragraph 4).
2.In section 1.1.7 In the "Clinical Evaluation of Home Whitening Strategies" section, the conclusion states that the G1 and G4 groups have higher satisfaction, but there is no correlation analysis with objective color change data such as "Δ E" or "Δ SGU".
The explanation of this questions is now part of introduction (page 6).
3.In section 1.1.8 The section on "Factors Predicting Whitening Effect and Tooth Sensitivity" mentions the independent and dependent variables of the analysis, but does not explicitly provide the key findings of this study.
The explanation of this questions is now part of introduction (page 7).
4.When summarizing the main findings of the "Umbrella Review" (Section 1.1.1), the first conclusion "There is no consistent difference between the whitening gel concentration and the color improvement" may be too absolute.
The explanation of this questions is now part of introduction (page 3).
5.The methodology section mentions the implementation of multi-stage analysis methods and outlines the sources of evidence, but does not provide detailed criteria and processes for literature search, screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation.
The methodological section showed several techniques but it is impossible to include all this data to one article.
6.The results section mentions that 'data from 28 systematic reviews were evaluated', but does not present basic information about these reviews in the form of tables or clear lists (such as authors, years, number of included studies, main conclusions).
We presented only selection of the most important data set for this area.
7. The discussion section points out that laser assisted methods (especially blue light and near-infrared lasers) can significantly accelerate the whitening process, but does not fully discuss the potential mechanisms related to this conclusion or the specific advantage data compared to other light activated systems (such as halogen lamps, LEDs).
The discussion was corrected – see page 11.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
-
Comments on the Quality of English Language
-
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
thanks for your response. I have no more questions
