PONE-D-22-20949Electromyographic Analysis of the Stomatognathic System of Children with Molar-Incisor HypomineralizationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Carvalho,

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 01 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,

Martina Ferrillo

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. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This research was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological

Development – CNPq (Process: 405914/2021-0)."

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: 

"This research was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – CNPq (Process: 405914/2021-0)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

[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: 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: Electromyographic Analysis of the Stomatognathic System of Children with Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization

Dear Authors,

the objective of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the masseter and temporal muscles (right and left), as well as to evaluate habitual masticatory cycles in individuals with and without Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization (MIH).

The study is in line with the aims of the Journal. Moreover, the study is very interesting and original.

However, the manuscript has to be improved.

Abstract

- The Abract Section is well written. However, please left spaces before and after “=“.

- Moreover, in my opinion the sentence “Conclusions: children with MIH had impaired functionality of the stomatognathic system” is too much hard. Please use “seem to have/or similar” instead of “had”.

Introduction

- The Introduction Section is too short and it do not introduce the electromyography. Please add a section in which you introduce it, reporting how it is used in dentistry (please cite Deregibus A et al. Are occlusal splints effective in reducing myofascial pain in patients with muscle-related temporomandibular disorders? A randomized-controlled trial. doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2021.6615. de Sire A et al. A Telerehabilitation Approach to Chronic Facial Paralysis in the COVID-19 Pandemic Scenario: What Role for Electromyography Assessment?. doi: 10.3390/jpm12030497. Li D et al. Accuracy of sleep bruxism scoring based on electromyography traces of different jaw muscles in individuals with obstructive sleep apnea. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.9940.

- Please modify “[4, 5, 6]” to 4-6

- Please modify “ [7, 8, 9, 10, 11]” to 7-11, for all references in the text.

Material and Methods

“The study included 72 children aged between six and 12 years, divided into the MIH group (MIHG, n = 36) and a control group without MIH (CG, n = 36).” Please put this information in the Result Section.

Discussion

PEB. Please report the definition of peb.

The Discussion section is well written. It reports the recent literature and authors argue their results.

References

The References have to be reported according to the instructions for Authors (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines).

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Your manuscript is really interesting and well conducted.

Unfortunately it cannot be published in present form and it needs to be revised.

• First, i ask you to check the plagiarism of your article using specific sites to get a similitary report (I recommend you grammarly pro: https://www.grammarly.com).

• You need to review the grammar and English of your article, with the help of a native English speaker (you can specify who helped you in reviewing English in the acknowledgements) or simply by using a site that can support you in English

• About the Title of the article, I suggest you to modify it and add the type of article

• Regarding the Abstract you must divide it into sub-paragraphs: Aim-Introduction-Matherials-Results-Conclusions.

• Add recent references about the topic of the article, dwelling in the introduction on articles published in 2022 and describing what your article will add compared to the last articles published; Preferably a published articles should be with 90 or more references, you don’t be afraid to add too many references.

I suggest you some articles that will help you improve your article.

In particular, I suggest you add in your discussion and introduction a few lines about other factors that can alter muscles activity and the chewing for example loss of teeth, decay teeth, mobile deciduous teeth, probably to decrease the risk of bias of your paper could be useful evaluate a DMFT of patients, certainly patients with loss teeth could have an altered muscles activity (compare previous Studies with partial/ total edentulism/syndromes discussing the topic) you can use these Elements to increase your discussion and add the purposes of future studies on the topic

RESULTS OF TREATMENT OF EDENTULOUS PATIENTS WITH DENTURES, MADE OF «VERTEX THERMOSENSE» (THERMOPLASTIC MATERIAL). PMID: 34159933.

Effects of denture wearing on coordinated features of jaw and neck muscle activities during chewing in partially edentulous elderly patients. PMID: 33041278.

Oral-facial-digital syndrome (OFD): 31-year follow-up management and monitoring PMID: 29460530

Telescopic overdenture on natural teeth: Prosthetic rehabilitation on OFD syndromic patient and a review on available literature PubMed ID 29460531

Please expand conclusion section with main results and future perspectives of this study

Thank You,

Kind Regards

**********

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.

Dear Dr. Fabrício Kitazono de Carvalho,  

Electromyographic Analysis of the Stomatognathic System of Children with Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization

PONE-D-22-20949R1

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,

Martina Ferrillo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

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 #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 #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 #2: Dear authors,

I'm satisfied, and in my opinion the paper is ready for the publication.

I found this work impactful and fit well with in the scope of this journal.

The manuscript needs some minor improvements; there are a few suggestions that authors may consider to improve it further: The use of the English language is reasonable, however, there are a number of punctuation and grammatical errors; that should be corrected and rephrased using academic English for a better flow of text for reader.

Abstract: is precisely written, and the aim of the study is mentioned.

The introduction; is detailed, compact, covering the background information and the rationale of the study effectively.

Materials and methods- this section is well organized.

Result, discussion and conclusion are well written.

Regards

**********

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

**********