Digital Analysis of a Novel Impression Method Named the Biological-Oriented Digital Impression Technique: A Clinical Audit
, Manuel Cuccu 1, Silvio Mario Meloni 1, Aurea Immacolata Lumbau 1, Edoardo Baldoni 1, Milena Pisano 1, Luca Fiorillo 2,3,4 and Gabriele Cervino 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a work on a new impression technique (BODiT). Generally, this approach is quite interesting an promising for more complicated restorative procedures. However, some points must be clarified:
1. Throughout the manuscript, the authors refer to their work as a "study". The presented data is clearly a case report of a single patient (which is fine), which should not be addressed as study/audit. This declaration as a "study" pretends a scientific investigation of several parameters, which was clearly not part of the presented work. Please avoid all terms suggesting that this work is a clinical trial.
2. The group of authors consists of 8 researchers. This seems quite a lot to me in regards to the extent of the presented work. Please provide a CreDiT statement, indicating the contributions of each single author.
3. From a clinical points of view, please provide a little bit more information about the endodontic treatment of the tooth. It seems to be, that there is no decrease in the size of the apical lesion after 6 months. This should be mentioned in the manuscript.
4. Please carefully revise the used materials in this case report. Which ceramic was used? This information is missing (p.7, 1st paragraph)
language is fine, some minor spelling errors
Author Response
The authors present a work on a new impression technique (BODiT). Generally, this approach is quite interesting an promising for more complicated restorative procedures. However, some points must be clarified:
1. Throughout the manuscript, the authors refer to their work as a "study". The presented data is clearly a case report of a single patient (which is fine), which should not be addressed as study/audit. This declaration as a "study" pretends a scientific investigation of several parameters, which was clearly not part of the presented work. Please avoid all terms suggesting that this work is a clinical trial.
-Dear Reviewer, thank You for Your kind and constructive comment, The manuscript has been revised according to Your suggestion.
2. The group of authors consists of 8 researchers. This seems quite a lot to me in regards to the extent of the presented work. Please provide a CreDiT statement, indicating the contributions of each single author.
-Dear Reviewer, Thank you for Your request, The CreDiT statement is mandatory, and it was already reported at the end of the manuscript.
3. From a clinical points of view, please provide a little bit more information about the endodontic treatment of the tooth. It seems to be, that there is no decrease in the size of the apical lesion after 6 months. This should be mentioned in the manuscript.
-Dear Reviewer, it has been specified in the text as requested, thank You
4. Please carefully revise the used materials in this case report. Which ceramic was used? This information is missing (p.7, 1st paragraph)
-Dear Reviewer, This information was already reported "The restoration was then printed in casting resin and finalised in lithium disilicate through the heat press forming. Finally, feldspatic ceramic was layered to improve the aesthetic results.”
Thank You for Your work, Kind Regards
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors performed a proof-of-concept work aiming to evaluate an innovative impression technique aiming to limit the invasiveness of impression procedures, avoiding the use of cords.
The technique is well described, with the presentation of an explicative case.
Each passage is clearly reported and reproducible.
The authors could mention the limitations of this kind of study and, therefore, provide indications for future research, in order to validate and improve such an innovative technique.
Line 22-23: "reducing the invasiveness of the patient." should be "reducing the invasiveness for the patient."
Line 91: "fibre" should be "fiber"
Line 93: "signe" should be "signed"
I think the manuscript can be considered for publication after a minor revision.
Author Response
The authors performed a proof-of-concept work aiming to evaluate an innovative impression technique aiming to limit the invasiveness of impression procedures, avoiding the use of cords.
The technique is well described, with the presentation of an explicative case.
Each passage is clearly reported and reproducible.
The authors could mention the limitations of this kind of study and, therefore, provide indications for future research, in order to validate and improve such an innovative technique.
-Dear Reviewer, thank You for Your kind comments and for Your support, a limitation subsection has been added at the end of Discussion section.
Line 22-23: "reducing the invasiveness of the patient." should be "reducing the invasiveness for the patient."
Line 91: "fibre" should be "fiber"
Line 93: "signe" should be "signed"
-Dear Reviewer, thank You for Your kind suggestion, These and other grammar errors have been corrected.
Kind Regards
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All points have been answered.
