Influence of Aesthetic Archwire Coatings on Bacterial Adhesion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors reviewed the effect of aesthetic archwire coatings on bacterial adhesion. The authors employed the PRISMA methodology to narrow the research article search for the review paper. Utilizing the GRADE system, selected research articles were evaluated. The article is well written and has summarized the finding well.

The article can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you for your review report. We have added minor corrections according to other reviewers' remarks.

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      The content of second chapter shall not be related to the process and method of literature retrieval and shall not be related to the title materials and methods.

2.      Titanium dioxide coating is mentioned in the abstract, but it is not mentioned in different coating materials in Chapter 3, it should be added.

3.      The performance of bacterial adhesion should be described more specifically than simply expressed in terms of increase and decrease, and it should also be clarified why the change in bacterial adhesion occurs.

Author Response

Thank you for your remarks! Please see the attachment with our response 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The review “Influence of aesthetic archwire coatings on bacterial adhesion” causes mixed feelings. On the one hand, the methodological part for the review preparation looks very strong. From the other hand, what information provides this review for readers interested in aesthetic archwire coatings? The conclusion is “it is impossible to determine whether aesthetic coatings reduce bacterial adhesion”. For readers, this review is useless. My suggestion is to change focuses and to shed light on the problem from the different perspectives. In particular,

-       - Speaking about  aesthetic archwire coatings, you mentioned epoxy resin coating, rhodium coating, teflon coating, biopolymer and silver coating, and 24 K gold coating. Some of this coating don't look like tooth enamel. From the aesthetic point of view, which of this coating are preferable?

-       -   Speaking about reducing of bacterial adhesion, it is implied “in comparison with”. So the properties of the materials used for arcwire production (initial properties of the arcwire surfaces) should be discussed. And, from this side, coatings may improve or not improve the properties of initial surface.

- Provide you point of view on this problem. Should the arcwire be prepared from plastic which colour may be easily adjusted to the colour of tooth enamel? Or the arcwire should be made by, e.g. steel and coated?

Author Response

Thank You for Your remarks! Please see the attachment with our response 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

It is suggested to add an explanation for patient choice of coating materials to Introduction part: fashion influence, or inconspicuous, like authors wrote in  Response to Reviewer 3 Comments:

 “ The coatings that visually change the surfaces of the archwires include epoxy resin, rhodium, teflon, biopolymer + silver and 24 K gold coatings [2], so these are not are not only coatings aimed to obtain the colour of the tooth enamel. There are some patients who choose gold coated brackets and archwires because of aesthetic aspects, that is why we included them in our review.”

Author Response

Thank You for Your remark. Please see the attachment with our response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx