Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction

Gholamreza Danesh; Pascal Kai Konstantin Podstawa; Cate-Emilia Schwartz; Christian Kirschneck; Mozhgan Bizhang; Wolfgang H. Arnold

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229595

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2019
19 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Thiago Saads Carvalho, Editor PONE-D-19-25991 Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction PLOS ONE Dear Prof. Dr. Danesh, 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 addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 02 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, Thiago Saads Carvalho, Privatdozent, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: This is an interesting study, and I would also like to offer possible points of improvement: 1. The authors performed profilometry on the proximal surface, but the teeth had been mounted on silicon (with contact points). If there were contact points, how was profilometry performed? Were the teeth removed from the silicon and afterwards replaced to continue the experiment? Could you clarify this issue on the paper? 2. The authors use codes for the systems, which are presented in table 1, but Tables 2 and 3 do not contain the same codes. For examples, KAS is not present. Standardizing these codes would help the readers. Also, the same codes should be used in Figure 3, to allow the readers to immediately identify the systems. 3. Table 2 shows roughness values initially for both mesial and distal surfaces. Is this an average of both surfaces? However, Table 3 shows roughness after 24h demin(only for mesial surfaces) and after 18 days cycle (only for distal). Why were both surfaces not measured at both times, like it was doen in table 2? If they were really measured separately, differences between the two surfaces could compromise the analyses. Please also take notice of other comments made by the other reviewer, presented below. Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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. In keeping with usual publication standards, please remove any copyright and trademark symbols from the manuscript text. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "We have no financial interest in this study." Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares all the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now Please state what role the funders took in the study. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." c. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: 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: Thank you for the opportunity to revise the paper “Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction”. The article analyzed the enamel surface quality comparing different IPR procedures, and it focused on the importance of remineralization to improve enamel surface quality. The paper is very interesting since IPR techniques have been gaining popularity in last years especially with new clear appliances’ treatments. There are some minor flaws to correct to improve the contents. - First of all, the paper should be edit by native English because the language is inadequate and needs to be improved. - Abstract, Conclusion section: the authors should explain the importance of remineralization after IPR procedures - Considering the lack of literature on the topic, I suggest to add the following recent papers: 1. Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: Oscillating versus manual strips. Gazzani, F., Lione, R., Pavoni, C., Mampieri, G., Cozza, P. 2019. BMC Oral Health. 19(1),247 2. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of diamond-coated strips. Lione, R., Gazzani, F., Pavoni, C.,, Tagliaferri, V., Cozza, P. 2017. Angle Orthodontist. 87(3), pp. 455-459 - Conclusion section: the authors should give some clinical implications of their findings and highlight the clinical importance to use remineralization after IPR procedures. ****** 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 [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.0229595.r001
Revision 1
3 Feb 2020 Author Response Response to the reviewers’ comments Additional Editor Comments: 1. The authors performed profilometry on the proximal surface, but the teeth had been mounted on silicon (with contact points). If there were contact points, how was profilometry performed? Were the teeth removed from the silicon and afterwards replaced to continue the experiment? Could you clarify this issue on the paper? Response: As correctly assumed teeth were demounted from the mounting silicon mold for profilometry analysis and then reinserted in their original position to continue the experiment. We added this information to the materials and methods section of the paper. 2. The authors use codes for the systems, which are presented in table 1, but Tables 2 and 3 do not contain the same codes. For examples, KAS is not present. Standardizing these codes would help the readers. Also, the same codes should be used in Figure 3, to allow the readers to immediately identify the systems. Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention! We standardized the abbreviations accordingly in all tables, Figure 3 and the manuscript. 3. Table 2 shows roughness values initially for both mesial and distal surfaces. Is this an average of both surfaces? However, Table 3 shows roughness after 24h demin (only for mesial surfaces) and after 18 days cycle (only for distal). Why were both surfaces not measured at both times, like it was done in table 2? If they were really measured separately, differences between the two surfaces could compromise the analyses. Response: Indeed the initial roughness values are an average of mesial and distal surfaces, as these were pooled for descriptive statistics as stated in the legend of Table 2, since roughness values between mesial and distal surfaces of teeth were quite similar at baseline and did not show significant differences in surface roughness. As both mesial and distal surfaces received identical IPR treatment, they were again both reevaluated after IPR with results shown in Table 2. Again we found no significant differences in surface roughness between mesial and distal surfaces after IPR treatment, which is why this was also reported as pooled results for mesial and distal surfaces in Table 2. From this point onward, mesial and distal surfaces received different treatments (24h demin or cyclic demin/remin for 18days respectively) forming two separate experimental groups, we decided to measure the clinically relevant endpoints rather than identical timepoints for both surfaces = experimental groups. As after IPR no differences were found for enamel roughness, there should be no compromise to the analysis, as the endpoints reported in Table 3 show, how in particular the two different treatments (24h demin or 18 cyclic demin/remin respectively) affected the IPR-treated enamel surface, irrespective of the mesial/distal aspect. The mesial and distal surfaces of each tooth were only used to be able to have the same enamel quality available for both experimental groups (24h demin or 18h cyclic demin/remin) thus minimizing biasing effects on the results (“split-tooth” model), which would have been more pronounced, if we had used double the number of teeth and only evaluated mesial surfaces. Measuring both surfaces at both times would have had no additional scientific or clinical gain, as mesial surfaces were covered in wax after 24h to protect them from further demineralisation, thus surface roughness of these mesial surfaces would have been the same as after 24h. The same is true for distal surfaces, which would most likely have had the same surface roughness after 24h of demineralisation as the mesial surfaces, as they started from the same baseline roughness, thus no additional clinically relevant information would have been gained. Reviewer #1: 1. First of all, the paper should be edit by native English because the language is inadequate and needs to be improved. Response: The paper was revised by a professional English language service and the respective translation certificate is provided. 2. Abstract, Conclusion section: the authors should explain the importance of remineralization after IPR procedures. Response: We added a respective explanation both to the abstract and the conclusions section. 3. Considering the lack of literature on the topic, I suggest to add the following recent papers: • Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: Oscillating versus manual strips. Gazzani, F., Lione, R., Pavoni, C., Mampieri, G., Cozza, P. 2019. BMC Oral Health. 19(1),247 • In vitro and in vivo evaluation of diamond-coated strips. Lione, R., Gazzani, F., Pavoni, C.,, Tagliaferri, V., Cozza, P. 2017. Angle Orthodontist. 87(3), pp. 455-459 Response: We added the suggested papers as suggested and briefly discussed their results. 4. Conclusion section: the authors should give some clinical implications of their findings and highlight the clinical importance to use remineralization after IPR procedures. Response: We added a respective explanation and clinical implications to the conclusions section. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229595.r002
11 Feb 2020 Decision Letter - Thiago Saads Carvalho, Editor Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction. PONE-D-19-25991R1 Dear Dr. Danesh, 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, Thiago Saads Carvalho, Privatdozent, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229595.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Feb 2020 Acceptance Letter - Thiago Saads Carvalho, Editor PONE-D-19-25991R1 Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction Dear Dr. Danesh: 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. Thiago Saads Carvalho Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229595.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 .