Influence of the Angle of Periodontal Intrabony Defects on Blood Clots: A Confocal Microscopy Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please back to editor for judgment

Comments on the Quality of English Language

many gramatical and language errors that have to be revised. there are also references that are not releavnt.

Author Response

revisions are made

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment no. 1: Abstract should not contain headings, such as aim, method, conclusion etc. Done in the text

Comment no. 2: The introduction provides an overview of previous work but lacks 

a critical evaluation of its contributions and limitations. The author should offer a more thorough and constructive assessment of the existing literature to clearly establish the knowledge gap addressed by the current research. Done in the text Comment no. 3: The conclusion is too short, author should add and elaborate more about the analysis and provide how it can be useful for future work. Comment no. 4: The author should mention the thermal and physical properties of blood at which the study has been performed. Done in the text Comment no. 5: Why did you choose 37 degree angle? Explain it physically and mathematically.  As cited by cortellini in his work 37 is a median between the others two values Comment no. 6: Is it possible to provide a comparison with real time data? To now no Minor error Comment no. 7: The reference should be cited in the text i.e., [1], instead of (1). Done in the text Comment no. 8: Too many small paragraphs, author should combine them to make a sequence for the better understanding. Done Comment no. 9: Reference should be prepared according to the style of the journal. Done  Comment no. 10: Please check the paper again for any possible misprints.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Respected Authors,

I find your paper entitled "Influence of the angle intrabony defect on blood clot; confocal microscopy study" interesting and I consider that it can bring a contribution to the development of research in the field of periodontal treatment.

However, in my opinion, the manuscript needs some improvements. Please find below my observations.

The Title section:

-I suggest you add the term "periodontal" to make the title more suggestive, such as "Influence of the angle of periodontal intrabony defect on blood clot; confocal microscopy study".

The Abstract section:

-a Background phrase would be useful to introduce the reader into the problem

-consider reducing it to a maximum of 200 words, as suggested by the Instructions for the Authors available on Journal site.

The Introduction section:

-please add citation of reference (5) in the corresponding place

-please add study hypothesis

The Materials and methods section:

-it is curious that the study received ethical approval in 2017, but the results are presented 7 years after

-please mention the providers of the materials described in subsection "Confocal microscopy evaluation"

-please mention the cut-off point of statistical significance in subsection "Statistical analysis".

The Results section:

-Tables 1 and 2 present the same dataset as Table 3, I suggest you eliminate Tables 1 and 2

-Table 3 - the values should be expressed as "mean value ±SD" (standard deviation) 

-Table 3 should also include a column containing the "p" values resulted from statistical analysis (ANOVA) and a mention of its significance or not

-the text is merely a repetition of the values presented in the Tables, I suggest you make a more concise presentation

-line 213 - "it is evident" - this expression should be supported by the results of the statistical analysis

-Table 4 is actually a figure (Graph), please correct

-line 222 - "statistically significant difference" - please provide the results of the intra-group statistical comparison

-line 222 - "difference between clot retraction and the increase in defect amplitude" - do you mean a correlation between them? In this case, a statistical analysis of correlation is necessary, otherwise it cannot be stated.

The Discussion section:

-please cite reference (13) - Nibali

-please add verification or not of study hypothesis.

The Conclusion section:

-"enhances the interaction between dentinal collagen fibers and the fibrin clot"- this is not a result of the present study, please remove.

The References section:

-most of the references are very old. 19 of the 25 references are older than 5 years, please replace them with newer ones.

-reference 20 is an unpublished PhD thesis, I suggest you remove it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

The Materials and methods section:

-it is curious that the study received ethical approval in 2017, but the results are presented 7 years after

Our response:

We understand the requisted clarifying information about ethical approval but it is not strange. The University of Trieste requires an approval by ethical commitee for use teeth extracted for periodontal disease for every experiment in laboratory. Our ethical commitee is inclusive for collection, storage, processing and analysis of extracted dental elements.

 

-please mention the providers of the materials described in subsection "Confocal microscopy evaluation”

Our response:

Thanks of course, we added this information in the text (Merk

 Life Science S.r.l.Milan, Italy). We think is better now.

 

-please mention the cut-off point of statistical significance in subsection "Statistical analysis”.

Our response:

We added this information.

 

The Results section:

-Table 3 - the values should be expressed as "mean value ±SD" (standard deviation) 

-Table 3 should also include a column containing the "p" values resulted from statistical analysis (ANOVA) and a mention of its significance or not

Our response:

We modified the table.

 

 

 

-line 213 - "it is evident" - this expression should be supported by the results of the statistical analysis

Our response:

We modified the expression

 

-line 222 - "statistically significant difference" - please provide the results of the intra-group statistical comparison

 

We modified the expression

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no comments to authors

Author Response

1. An introductive sentence was added to the Abstract section, but it is not suggestive for the study presented. Moreover, the Abstract is very difficult to follow. Most probably because of the necessity to reduce it to 200 words, some of the sentences are not complete and the punctuation is confusing. Please try to rewrite this section, as it is important because it is the first contact of the reader with the article. Done in the text

 

2. Statistical analysis section - please replace "⍺" with "p" Done in the text
3. The Table from the Results section is modified only in the Word document containing the Authors' response to the reviewer, but not in the "Original images" file (it seems to be the old file, with 3 Tables). Please clarify with the Editors and upload the new supplemental file containing the modified Table and titles. Done a new table

 Another observation concerning the Table with the results is that the "p" values are similar for various differences between the variables compared. Please check once again the "p" values. cheked but are correct 

4. The values in the Table are fully repeated in the corresponding text. Please make a more concise presentation of the results in the text. Done in the text
5. In the final paragraph of the Results section it is stated that " in the NT group, there is a statistically influence between clot retraction and the increase in defect amplitude." Like I mentioned in my first review report, in this case, a statistical analysis of correlation between the two variables is necessary, otherwise this cannot be stated. changed
6. In the Discussion section - please mention the verification or not of study hypothesis. Done in the text
7. In the Conclusion section, it is stated that "The additional use of chemical decontaminants...enhances the interaction between dentinal collagen fibers and the fibrin clot"- this is not a result of the present study and I consider that it should be removed. Done removed
8. Most of the references are very old (19 of the 24 references are older than 5 years), please try to replace them with more recent ones. 9 has been changed some very old are fundamental for the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Respected Authors,

Thank you for considering some of my recommendations in the revised version of your manuscript.

However, some important issues still remain. 

1. An introductive sentence was added to the Abstract section, but it is not suggestive for the study presented. Moreover, the Abstract is very difficult to follow. Most probably because of the necessity to reduce it to 200 words, some of the sentences are not complete and the punctuation is confusing. Please try to rewrite this section, as it is important because it is the first contact of the reader with the article.

2. Statistical analysis section - please replace "⍺" with "p"

3. The Table from the Results section is modified only in the Word document containing the Authors' response to the reviewer, but not in the "Original images" file (it seems to be the old file, with 3 Tables). Please clarify with the Editors and upload the new supplemental file containing the modified Table and titles.

Another observation concerning the Table with the results is that the "p" values are similar for various differences between the variables compared. Please check once again the "p" values.

4. The values in the Table are fully repeated in the corresponding text. Please make a more concise presentation of the results in the text.

5. In the final paragraph of the Results section it is stated that " in the NT group, there is a statistically influence between clot retraction and the increase in defect amplitude." Like I mentioned in my first review report, in this case, a statistical analysis of correlation between the two variables is necessary, otherwise this cannot be stated.

6. In the Discussion section - please mention the verification or not of study hypothesis.

7. In the Conclusion section, it is stated that "The additional use of chemical decontaminants...enhances the interaction between dentinal collagen fibers and the fibrin clot"- this is not a result of the present study and I consider that it should be removed.

8. Most of the references are very old (19 of the 24 references are older than 5 years), please try to replace them with more recent ones.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

1. An introductive sentence was added to the Abstract section, but it is not suggestive for the study presented. Moreover, the Abstract is very difficult to follow. Most probably because of the necessity to reduce it to 200 words, some of the sentences are not complete and the punctuation is confusing. Please try to rewrite this section, as it is important because it is the first contact of the reader with the article. Done in the text

 

2. Statistical analysis section - please replace "⍺" with "p" Done in the text
3. The Table from the Results section is modified only in the Word document containing the Authors' response to the reviewer, but not in the "Original images" file (it seems to be the old file, with 3 Tables). Please clarify with the Editors and upload the new supplemental file containing the modified Table and titles. Done a new table

 Another observation concerning the Table with the results is that the "p" values are similar for various differences between the variables compared. Please check once again the "p" values. cheked but are correct 

4. The values in the Table are fully repeated in the corresponding text. Please make a more concise presentation of the results in the text. Done in the text
5. In the final paragraph of the Results section it is stated that " in the NT group, there is a statistically influence between clot retraction and the increase in defect amplitude." Like I mentioned in my first review report, in this case, a statistical analysis of correlation between the two variables is necessary, otherwise this cannot be stated. changed
6. In the Discussion section - please mention the verification or not of study hypothesis. Done in the text
7. In the Conclusion section, it is stated that "The additional use of chemical decontaminants...enhances the interaction between dentinal collagen fibers and the fibrin clot"- this is not a result of the present study and I consider that it should be removed. Done removed
8. Most of the references are very old (19 of the 24 references are older than 5 years), please try to replace them with more recent ones. 9 has been changed some very old are fundamental for the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Respected Authors,

Thank you for considering my recommendations in the revised version of your manuscript entitled " Influence of the angle intrabony defect on blood clot; confocal microscopy study".

I noticed that some issues still persist in this new version.

1. The revised version of Table 1 cannot be found anywhere. Actually, the same old supplementary files are found on Article page, not the revised ones (please clarify with the Editors). My advice is to introduce the Table, Graph and images in the same file with the text, to facilitate reading.

2. The final paragraph of the Results section was only changed by replacing "statistically" with "significant". Actually, they mean the same thing. What I recommended was to perform the statistical analysis of correlation, as this demonstrates the study hypothesis. 

3. The final paragraph of the Discussion section was probably added instead of the final paragraph of the Results section. Actually, it is not necessary to "speculate" anything, the proof would be provided by the results of correlation analysis. Please perform this analysis and add its results in the Results section (coefficient values).

4. I understand that the remaining old references are fundamental for your article. In this case, to improve the balance between old/recent references, please add more recent references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

1. The revised version of Table 1 cannot be found anywhere. Actually, the same old supplementary files are found on Article page, not the revised ones (please clarify with the Editors). My advice is to introduce the Table, Graph and images in the same file with the text, to facilitate reading. Done, all attached  in one file 

 

2. The final paragraph of the Results section was only changed by replacing "statistically" with "significant". Actually, they mean the same thing. What I recommended was to perform the statistical analysis of correlation, as this demonstrates the study hypothesis. Done and a new graph with correlation analysi  has been created

3. The final paragraph of the Discussion section was probably added instead of the final paragraph of the Results section. Actually, it is not necessary to "speculate" anything, the proof would be provided by the results of correlation analysis. Please perform this analysis and add its results in the Results section (coefficient values).

4. I understand that the remaining old references are fundamental for your article. In this case, to improve the balance between old/recent references, please add more recent references. done in the text

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf