Ex vivo investigation on internal tunnel approach/internal resin infiltration and external nanosilver-modified resin infiltration of proximal caries exceeding into dentin

Andrej M. Kielbassa; Marlene R. Leimer; Jens Hartmann; Stephan Harm; Markus Pasztorek; Ina B. Ulrich

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228249

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 6, 2019
2 Jan 2020 Decision Letter - Yogendra Kumar Mishra, Editor PONE-D-19-27949 Ex vivo investigation on internal tunnel approach/internal resin infiltration and external nanosilver-modified resin infiltration of proximal caries exceeding into dentin PLOS ONE Dear Prof. Dr. med. dent. Dr. h. c. Kielbassa, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that carefully addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Yogendra Kumar Mishra, Ph. D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that you have a patent relating to material pertinent to this article. Please provide an amended statement of Competing Interests to declare this patent (with details including name and number), along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development or modified products etc. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The antimicrobial role of nano silver particles in preventing the extension of caries into dentin is very interesting and has potential to control the tooth decay. The work is detailed and technically sound. The results from experiments have been discussed in detail. The manuscript is presented very well. I recommend that the manuscript can be accepted in the current form. Reviewer #2: 1. The title should be modified to “ Ex vivo investigation on internal tunnel approach/internal and external nanosilver-modified resin infiltration of proximal caries exceeding into dentin”. 2. Line 25-29, Sentence is quite confusing due to grammatical error. 3. Line 28-32, Same confusion. 4. Authors are suggested to rewrite the whole abstract in a concise manner. Try to make short sentences. In order to add more and more information, sentences written are totally not understandable. 5. Introduction is too long and deviating from the study, Moreover same problem is persisting. 6. Disscusion part also is too long although scientifically correct. The author has tried to define each and every aspects with good results. However, the discussion of the results are deviating due to long and length sentences leading to confusion. Moreover, authors are somehow short to justify the purpose of integrating nanosilver. 7. I would recommend authors to go through the manuscript thoroughly and correct English as well as discussion part. The manuscript will than be publishable after a major revision ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228249.r001
Revision 1
10 Jan 2020 Author Response Statement of Competing Interests to declare a patent Andrej M. Kielbassa is appointed as inventor in Austrian, Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese, French, German, Indian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Swiss, UK and US patents (held by Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany) for the infiltration technique for cari-ous lesions (“Method and means for infiltrating enamel lesions“, Patent Number: 8853297); these patents have been licensed by DMG (Hamburg, Germany), and Andrej M. Kielbassa receives royalties from this license. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE poli-cies on sharing data and materials. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author  1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?  The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Authors: Dear Reviewers, thank you very much for taking some spare time to review our paper. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Authors: Thank you. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?  The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Authors: Thank you. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?  PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Authors: Thank you. We have thoroughly revised our manuscript, and we hope that the second Reviewer’s concerns will be satisfied. 5. Review Comments to the Author  Reviewer #1: The antimicrobial role of nano silver particles in preventing the extension of caries into dentin is very interesting and has potential to control the tooth decay. The work is detailed and technically sound. The results from experiments have been discussed in detail. The manuscript is presented very well. I recommend that the manuscript can be accepted in the current form. Authors: Thank you very much. Your comments are appreciated. Reviewer #2: 1. The title should be modified to “ Ex vivo investigation on internal tunnel approach/internal and external nanosilver-modified resin infiltration of proximal caries exceeding into dentin”. Authors: We have tried to shorten the title in the way this reviewer has suggested. However, this might be misleading. Indeed, internal resin infiltration was done with non-modified infiltrant, while only with the external approach a nanosilver-modified infiltrant was used. We strongly feel that our first version should be more comprehensible for the readers. With 170 characters, the limit set by PLoS ONE (250) will not be exceeded. We do hope that you agree. 2. Line 25-29, Sentence is quite confusing due to grammatical error. Authors: We have revised the whole text (including the Abstract section), and grammatical shortcomings should have been eliminated. 3. Line 28-32, Same confusion. Authors: We have revised the whole text (including the Abstract section), and all language shortcomings should be smoothened now. 4. Authors are suggested to rewrite the whole abstract in a concise manner. Try to make short sentences. In order to add more and more information, sentences written are totally not understandable. Authors: We have revised the Abstract section, and readability should be improved now (299 words, and not exceeding PLoS ONE’s limits). Thank you for alerting. We hope that this revised version will be satisfying. 5. Introduction is too long and deviating from the study, Moreover same problem is persisting. Authors: Please note that PLoS ONE does not restrict on word count, and manuscripts can be any length (see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references). Notwithstanding, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript, at the same time following the PLoS ONE instructions regarding the Introduction section. Last but not least, with our manuscript a new treatment rationale is presented, and we feel that the respective aspects should be clearly elucidated, to foster a deep understanding. 6. Disscusion part also is too long although scientifically correct. The author has tried to define each and every aspects with good results. However, the discussion of the results are deviating due to long and length sentences leading to confusion. Moreover, authors are somehow short to justify the purpose of integrating nanosilver. Authors: As with the Introduction section, we have thoroughly revised the Discussion part. Regarding the nanosilver integration, there are several paragraphs elaborating the microbiological challenges and revealing the effects of nanosilver itself. Thus, we feel that the reader will be able to understand the background rationales. 7. I would recommend authors to go through the manuscript thoroughly and correct English as well as discussion part. The manuscript will than be publishable after a major revision Authors: Please note that we have thoroughly revised the whole manuscript, to smooth out any language shortcomings and to facilitate readability. Once again, thank you very much. Your comments are greatly appreciated. 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.   If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.   Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Authors: We have already used PACE with our first submission, so this should be OK. Once again, thank you for your comments. We hope that our revised version will be ready to proceed. Sincerely, Andrej M. Kielbassa (on behalf of all co-authors) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RebuttalLetter_AMK.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228249.r002
13 Jan 2020 Decision Letter - Yogendra Kumar Mishra, Editor Ex vivo investigation on internal tunnel approach/internal resin infiltration and external nanosilver-modified resin infiltration of proximal caries exceeding into dentin PONE-D-19-27949R1 Dear Dr. Kielbassa, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Yogendra Kumar Mishra, Ph. D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228249.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Jan 2020 Acceptance Letter - Yogendra Kumar Mishra, Editor PONE-D-19-27949R1 Ex vivo investigation on internal tunnel approach/internal resin infiltration and external nanosilver-modified resin infiltration of proximal caries exceeding into dentin Dear Dr. Kielbassa: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Yogendra Kumar Mishra Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228249.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .