Decision to use denture adhesive in complete denture wearers after one-month run-in period: A quasi-experimental study

Nareudee Limpuangthip; Wacharasak Tumrasvin; Budsara Thongyoi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276760

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 24, 2022
28 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Gaetano Isola, Editor PONE-D-22-08584Decision to Use Denture Adhesive in Complete Denture Wearers After One-Month Trial: A Quasi-Experimental StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tumrasvin, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 12 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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. 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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Gaetano Isola, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study. As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper: 1) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started); 2) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4.Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: "The present research was funded by the Faculty Research Grant, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University [grant number DRF 63002]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "The present research was funded by the Faculty Research Grant, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University [grant number DRF 63002]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript still requests some major revisions [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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Yes ****** 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: Authors conducted an interesting paper, for which I present some comments/suggestions in the attached pdf file. In summary, the paper describes a relevant clinical study on oral health that may benefit from some clarification and slightly different writing. I have some concern regarding the short term follow-up (1 month), as probably the major issue I could find -- please justify and/or explain the limitations arisen by the timeline in the Discussion section Reviewer #2: A clinical trial was conducted which aimed to assess health-related quality of life and masticatory performance at three time points. Since the statistical analyses are not comprehensive, the conclusions are unclear. Major revision: Comprehensive statistical methods are required to analyze the repeated measures data. Additionally, test the interaction effects. Suggested revisions: 1- Abstract: Spell out all acronyms and abbreviations. 2- Abstract: The phrasing of the statistical methods described in the abstract is confusing. Only one of the following method should be used for each comparison: McNemar’s, chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. McNemar’s is used with dependent observations. The other two are for comparing independent observations. 3- Abstract and Statistical analysis section: Does repeated ANOVA refer to a “repeated measures ANOVA” analysis? Clarify. 4- Page 5: Replace “during January” with “from January.” 5- Page 5: Sample size and statistical power: State the statistical testing method which attains 80% power. 6- Page 8, Statistical analysis: - Does the first sentence imply that statistical significance was set at 5%? Clarify the statement. - Chi-square tests are used for testing associations and independent t-tests are used to compare differences in means between two groups. Clarify this statement. - Analyze differences in peanut particle size between groups and across time points using a repeated measures ANOVA. Test the interaction effect of group by time. If, however, the peanut particle size is not normally distributed use a linear mixed model. Test the indicated interaction effect. 7- Table 1: - In addition to the percentages, provide the corresponding frequencies. - Consider replacing “CD age” with “CD years of usage.” - Indicate if the distribution of the data was checked for normality prior to applying t-tests. 8- Table 2: - In addition to the percentages, provide the corresponding frequencies. - To model repeated measures data, use mixed effects logistic regression models instead of simple logistic regression models. 9- Page 11: The letter r is used to indicate the estimate of rho. Thus “r=0.30” and “r=0.08” would be the standard presentation. Is the correlation coefficient the same at T1 and T2? If not, present both. Note: The p-value associated with a correlation is a test of the null hypothesis: correlation equal to zero; however, the absolute magnitude of the coefficient indicates the strength of the linear relationship between two variables. In general, the strength or correlation coefficient is the more important statistic to focus on. Below is a table for interpreting correlation coefficients: Coefficient (absolute value) Interpretation 0.90 - 1.0 Very Strong 0.70 - 0.89 Strong 0.40 - 0.69 Moderate 0.10 - 0.39 Weak 10- To assist in the review process, add line numbers to the document. ****** 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.] 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-08584_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276760.r001
Revision 1
30 Jul 2022 Author Response The authors are pleased to submit our revised manuscript ID. PONE-D-22-08584. The title has been revised to ‘Decision to Use Denture Adhesive in Complete Denture Wearers After One-Month Run-In Period: A Quasi-Experimental Study’. The requested revisions have been made in the manuscript in track changes, and our point-by-point responses are below. Reviewer #1: Comment: Authors conducted an interesting paper, for which I present some comments/suggestions in the attached pdf file. In summary, the paper describes a relevant clinical study on oral health that may benefit from some clarification and slightly different writing. I have some concern regarding the short-term follow-up (1 month), as probably the major issue I could find -- please justify and/or explain the limitations arisen by the timeline in the Discussion section Response: The limitation on short follow-up duration has been added to the ‘Discussion’ section, stating that ‘the 1-month follow-up period was relatively short to determine the stable results with patient-reported outcome measures, and it remains unidentified whether the patients would continue using DA based on its additional cost. However, this was because approximately half of the patients with ill-fitting denture had a new CD fabricated within a few months. During this time, wearing an ill-fitting denture was prohibited, otherwise, a soft or hard denture lining material was applied on the tissue surface of the denture.’ Other responses according to comments in PDF file of the manuscript are as follows: Abstract 1. Comment: Please use another word instead of ‘trial’. Response: The word ‘trial’ of denture adhesive use has been changed to ‘run-in period’ of denture adhesive use. Introduction 1. Comment on study objective: This part is confusing and does not put the objectives of this study in a clear manner. I suggest rewriting it, by stating PICO components of a research question in your objectives, and then mention that all participants had used DA during a 1-month run-in period. Response: The objective of this study has been revising by stating the PICO components. The last paragraph of Introduction section has been revised to ‘Because DA experience could be an important factor in CD wearers deciding whether to use DA, the present study provided a run-in period of DA use for all CD wearers prior to allowing them to choose whether to continue using DA. The objective of this study was to assess the OHRQoL and masticatory performance of CD wearers before and after a 1-month run-in period of DA use.’ Materials and Methods 1. Comment: Which of the CONSORT guideline being used, main or extensions? Please specify and cite the reference. Response: The CONSORT guideline extension for pragmatic trials was used. The reference has been added in the first paragraph of the Materials and Methods section. 2. Comment on participants subsection: Please describe the recruitment protocol. Unless you created a random number algorithm to select participants from your former patient database, the selection possibly was not random BTW (in such case, avoid the term "randomly") Response: The word ‘randomly’ has been removed from the sentence. 3. Comment on participants subsection: Was there any restriction to the timing of being edentulous, case complexity, age, systemic status, presence of implant and other factors that may influence the performance of CDs? Response: There was no restriction to age, the timing of being edentulous, and case complexity (ACP classification). Although these factors may influence the CDs performance, they were equally distributed between the participants who continued and discontinued using denture adhesive (as shown in Table 1). The exclusion criteria were the patients who wore a metal-based or implant-retained overdenture or had difficulty in responding to the interview or performing the mastication test due to physical and psychological impairment. Tables 1. Comment on Table 2. Please remove decimal from the percentages. Response: The decimals have been removed from the percentage with an integer number to facilitate data visualization. However, decimal remains in non-integer number for accurate data. The frequency of the participant has been added. Reviewer #2: A clinical trial was conducted which aimed to assess health-related quality of life and masticatory performance at three time points. Since the statistical analyses are not comprehensive, the conclusions are unclear. Major revision: Comprehensive statistical methods are required to analyze the repeated measures data. Additionally, test the interaction effects. Suggested revisions: 1- Comment on Abstract: Spell out all acronyms and abbreviations. Response: All acronyms and abbreviations in the abstract have been spelled out. 2- Comment on Abstract: The phrasing of the statistical methods described in the abstract is confusing. Only one of the following methods should be used for each comparison: McNemar’s, chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. McNemar’s is used with dependent observations. The other two are for comparing independent observations. Response: The sentences have been revised to ‘Changes in the percentages of having an oral impact from T0 to T2 were evaluated using the McNemar’s test. The effect of denture quality and decision to use DA on peanut particle size across time points were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA, and an interaction effect was found. The peanut particle size changes in each group between time points were evaluated using the one-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc comparison test.’ 3- Comment on Abstract and Statistical analysis section: Does repeated ANOVA refer to a “repeated measures ANOVA” analysis? Clarify. Response: The word ‘repeated measures ANOVA’ has been used throughout the manuscript. 4- Comment on Page 5: Replace “during January” with “from January.” Response: ‘during January’ has been replaced with ‘from January’. 5- Comment on Page 5: Sample size and statistical power: State the statistical testing method which attains 80% power. Response: The statistical testing method for attaining 80% power is described in Page 6 (line 101), stating that ‘The sample size was estimated using the GPower v.3.1 program based on the Z-test family and the statistical test of two independent proportions. 6- Comment on Page 8, Statistical analysis: - Does the first sentence imply that statistical significance was set at 5%? Clarify the statement. - Chi-square tests are used for testing associations and independent t-tests are used to compare differences in means between two groups. Clarify this statement. - Analyze differences in peanut particle size between groups and across time points using a repeated measures ANOVA. Test the interaction effect of group by time. If, however, the peanut particle size is not normally distributed use a linear mixed model. Test the indicated interaction effect. Response: - The first sentence has been revised to ‘Data were analyzed using STATA version 13.0 (STATA, Chicago, IL), and the statistical significance level was set at 5%.’ - The statement in line 162–165 has been revised to ‘The associations between the decision to use DA and the categorical variables were determined using chi-square test, whereas the mean differences between two groups were determined using the independent t-test.’ - Descriptions on the differences in peanut particle size between groups across time points have been revised to ‘The effect of denture quality and decision to use DA on peanut particle size across time points were assessed using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA, and an interaction effect of denture quality and time was found. The changes in the peanut particle size in each group between time points were evaluated using the one-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc comparison test.’ 7- Comment on Table 1: - In addition to the percentages, provide the corresponding frequencies. Response: The corresponding frequencies have been added in the Table 1. - Consider replacing “CD age” with “CD years of usage.” Response: The ‘CD age’ has been replaced with ‘CD years of usage’ in the Table 1. - Indicate if the distribution of the data was checked for normality prior to applying t-tests. Response: The description on normality testing has been added, stating that ‘The normality test was performed using Shapiro Wilk test, and parametric tests were employed.’ 8- Comment on Table 2: - In addition to the percentages, provide the corresponding frequencies. Response: The corresponding frequencies have been added in the Table 2. - To model repeated measures data, use mixed effects logistic regression models instead of simple logistic regression models. Response: The McNemar test were used instead of regression models because the number of participants in some subgroups was too small (n=1, 2) which result in data being dropped-out when using a regression analysis. 9- Comment on Page 11: The letter r is used to indicate the estimate of rho. Thus “r=0.30” and “r=0.08” would be the standard presentation. Is the correlation coefficient the same at T1 and T2? If not, present both. Note: The p-value associated with a correlation is a test of the null hypothesis: correlation equal to zero; however, the absolute magnitude of the coefficient indicates the strength of the linear relationship between two variables. In general, the strength or correlation coefficient is the more important statistic to focus on. Below is a table for interpreting correlation coefficients: Coefficient (absolute value) Interpretation 0.90 - 1.0 Very Strong 0.70 - 0.89 Strong 0.40 - 0.69 Moderate 0.10 - 0.39 Weak Response: The p-value of the Spearman correlation has been removed. The coefficient interpretations have been added according to the strength of association. 10- Comment: To assist in the review process, add line numbers to the document. Response: The line numbers have been added in the manuscript. Sincerely yours, Wacharasak Tumrasvin Corresponding author Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276760.r002
24 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Gaetano Isola, Editor PONE-D-22-08584R1Decision to use denture adhesive in complete denture wearers after one-month run-in period: A quasi-experimental studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tumrasvin, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 08 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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. 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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Gaetano Isola, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Lines 174-6: In the "Statistical analysis" section, describe only the statistical methods. Do not include the results. Remove the fact that an interaction effect was found. Simply indicate that an interaction effect was tested. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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: Yes ****** 6. 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 authors made significant improvements in their manuscript. I am satisfied with the present version. Reviewer #2: Minor revision (Note that line numbers refer to those in the tracked changes version.) Lines 174-6: In the "Statistical analysis" section, describe only the statistical methods. Do not include the results. Remove the fact that an interaction effect was found. Simply indicate that an interaction effect was tested. ****** 7. 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.] 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276760.r003
Revision 2
17 Sep 2022 Author Response The authors are pleased to submit our revised manuscript ID. PONE-D-22-08584R1, entitled ‘Decision to Use Denture Adhesive in Complete Denture Wearers After One-Month Run-In Period: A Quasi-Experimental Study’. The authors have changed the sequence of reference lists corresponding to the previous changes at first revision. The requested revisions have been made in the manuscript in track changes, and our point-by-point responses are below. Reviewer #1: Comment: The authors made significant improvements in their manuscript. I am satisfied with the present version. Response: The authors would like to thank you for reviewers’ comments which make the substantial improvement of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: Comment: Minor revision (Note that line numbers refer to those in the tracked changes version.) Lines 174-6: In the "Statistical analysis" section, describe only the statistical methods. Do not include the results. Remove the fact that an interaction effect was found. Simply indicate that an interaction effect was tested. Response: In the statistical analysis section, the sentence has been revised to ‘The effect of denture quality and the decision to use DA on peanut particle size across time points were assessed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA, and an interaction effect of denture quality and time was tested.’ Sincerely yours, Wacharasak Tumrasvin Corresponding author Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Revise2_Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276760.r004
13 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Gaetano Isola, Editor Decision to use denture adhesive in complete denture wearers after one-month run-in period: A quasi-experimental study PONE-D-22-08584R2 Dear Dr. Tumrasvin, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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. Kind regards, Gaetano Isola, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 5. 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 6. 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 7. 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276760.r005
Formally Accepted
23 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - Gaetano Isola, Editor PONE-D-22-08584R2 Decision to Use Denture Adhesive in Complete Denture Wearers After One-Month Run-In Period: A Quasi-Experimental Study Dear Dr. Tumrasvin: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Gaetano Isola Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276760.r006

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 .