Rigenera^® Autologous Micrografts in Oral Regeneration: Clinical, Histological, and Radiographical Evaluations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Attached my suggestions/appraisals to your work.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

 

 

 

Line 44: In the statement "... A recent protocol proposed by Graziano et al. [12,13], using the Rigenera® micrografting technology, suggests the use of a new type of autologous graft ...”, I am not sure that the bibliographic reference is correct. In fact, references number 12 and 13, do not have Graziano as the first author.

 

 

Line 44:  Thank you for your comment. We modified the authors related to article 12-13 adding the information requested.

 

 

Line 163: Reference 27 should not be in this part of the text. One thing is the justification of the analytical method used, admittedly adequate, and supported by the referenced study, another thing is the presentation of the results supported by the 2012 study. I think it is just a matter of clarifying the statement or placing the methodology justification in the materials and methods or, eventually, in the discussion.

 

Line 163: Point taken, we delete reference number 27 because it is not relevant for the study, it was added as a reference for the software used by the authors of an included study.

 

Line 193: It`s true that the studies with biomaterial in oral regeneration are not numerous, but, if I may, I recommend reading an interesting review recently published on the topic: “Human Oral Stem Cells, Biomaterials and Extracellular Vesicles: A Promising Tool in Bone Tissue Repair”. Trubiani , Marconi, Pierdomenico1, Piattelli , Diomede, Pizzicannella Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20(20), 4987; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20204987

 

Line 193: Thank you for your comment. We add this article as a reference.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript untitled “Autologous Micrografts in Oral Regeneration”  review studies evaluating the use of micrograft enriched with progenitor cells for tissue regeneration after oral surgery.

All studies included in the review paper use rigenera micrografting technology, which allow fast extraction of progenitor cells that is particularly relevant for clinical use.

it is a very interesting review paper and I have only a few comments.

 

The title, abstract and introduction are unclear about the aim of this study is misleading. Only the keys word used for the search show what the review is about.

The authors have to emphasis in the title abstract and introduction that the study aims to evaluate the micrograft made with rigenera micrografting technology on bone regeneration after oral surgery.

 

The inclusion criteria should be clarified as not all studies included  report clinical and histological analysis

 

Line 100, Hydroxyapatite is misspelled

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

The title, abstract and introduction are unclear about the aim of this study is misleading. Only the keys word used for the search show what the review is about.

Thank you for your comment. We modified the title and we add some more information in the abstract regarding the aim and scope of this review.

 

The authors have to emphasis in the title abstract and introduction that the study aims to evaluate the micrograft made with rigenera micrografting technology on bone regeneration after oral surgery.

 

Thank you for your comment. We modified the title and we add some more information in the abstract regarding the use of Rigenera protocol.

The inclusion criteria should be clarified as not all studies included report clinical and histological analysis

 

In this regard, we add further information on what types of studies have been included and, unfortunately, the reporting of clinical histological and radiographic data has not been explained in all studies due to the different techniques used and the approach that did not allow to extract histological or clinical data.

 

Line 100, Hydroxyapatite is misspelled

Point taken.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did a very good work. I don't have any additional comment