Interdental Papillary Reconstruction by Microtunnelling Technique Using Autologous Biomatrices—A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial
, P. S. G. Prakash 1, Devapriya Appukuttan 1, Abirami Thanigaimalai 2, Maha A. Bahammam 3,4, Khalid J. Alzahrani 5, Khalaf F. Alsharif 5, Ibrahim F. Halawani 5, Mrim M. Alnfiai 6, Thodur Madapusi Balaji 7 and Shankargouda Patil 8,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
thanks for having provided such an interesting manuscript.
It deals with the comparison of two different autologous biomatrices for papillary reconstruction.
Mine are simply minor observations as the manuscript is appropriately conducted from a methodological point of you.
1. Do not report results in materials and methods (e.g. line 99-100 must be moved in results).
2. English needs to be strongly revised as many typos and errors are present.
3. Be sure that every acronym is reported "in extenso" the first time you use it. (e.g. CTG in line 72)
4. Figure 1 has a very bad graphical release that prevents the reader from completely understanding it. Please fix it.
Regards
Author Response
Corrections as suggested by the reviewers
|
Reviewers |
Comments |
Corrections |
|
Comment M1 |
Similar index in Red should be less than 5% and the total similar index should be lower than 35%
|
Similar index in Red has been corrected |
|
Comment M2 |
|
“p” has been corrected to italic font style “p” throughout the manuscript |
|
Comment M3 |
In the image, please add a space before and after “=”. Also, revise “n” into the “n”. |
Space added before and after “=”. “n” changed into the “n”. |
|
1 |
Do not report results in materials and methods (e.g. line 99-100 must be moved in results). |
It was ensured that results are not reported in materials and methods. Line 99-100 corresponds to the introduction section in the PDF document |
|
1 |
English needs to be strongly revised as many typos and errors are present |
English revision done |
|
1 |
Be sure that every acronym is reported "in extenso" the first time you use it. |
Acronym is expanded when it is used for the first time. |
|
1 |
Figure 1 has a very bad graphical release that prevents the reader from completely understanding it. Please fix it. |
Figure 1 replaced |
|
2 |
There is no hypothesis
|
Hypothesis given in the last line of the introduction |
|
2 |
The introduction should be more focused on the topic of the study |
Introduction refined and focused on the topic |
|
2 |
Smaller sample size and a follow-up duration of only 6 months are the shortcomings of the present study |
This has been included in the last paragraph of the discussion as a limitation |
|
2 |
Poor quality of the images. |
Figure 2d replaced |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting .
The study has been designed as a randomised controlled clinical trial to assess the regenerative potential of autologous biomatrices in the microtunneling technique for interdental papillary reconstruction
There is no hypothesis
The introduction should be more focused on the topic of the study
Smaller sample size and a follow-up duration of only 6 months are the shortcomings of the present study
Poor and very poor quality of the images.They should be much more representative
Typographical errors that give the impression that the work has been very rushed
Author Response
Corrections as suggested by the reviewers
|
Reviewers |
Comments |
Corrections |
|
Comment M1 |
Similar index in Red should be less than 5% and the total similar index should be lower than 35%
|
Similar index in Red has been corrected |
|
Comment M2 |
|
“p” has been corrected to italic font style “p” throughout the manuscript |
|
Comment M3 |
In the image, please add a space before and after “=”. Also, revise “n” into the “n”. |
Space added before and after “=”. “n” changed into the “n”. |
|
1 |
Do not report results in materials and methods (e.g. line 99-100 must be moved in results). |
It was ensured that results are not reported in materials and methods. Line 99-100 corresponds to the introduction section in the PDF document |
|
1 |
English needs to be strongly revised as many typos and errors are present |
English revision done |
|
1 |
Be sure that every acronym is reported "in extenso" the first time you use it. |
Acronym is expanded when it is used for the first time. |
|
1 |
Figure 1 has a very bad graphical release that prevents the reader from completely understanding it. Please fix it. |
Figure 1 replaced |
|
2 |
There is no hypothesis
|
Hypothesis given in the last line of the introduction |
|
2 |
The introduction should be more focused on the topic of the study |
Introduction refined and focused on the topic |
|
2 |
Smaller sample size and a follow-up duration of only 6 months are the shortcomings of the present study |
This has been included in the last paragraph of the discussion as a limitation |
|
2 |
Poor quality of the images. |
Figure 2d replaced |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
the changes have been made properly
