Effects of light curing on silver diamine fluoride-treated carious lesions: A systematic review

Saw Nay Min; Duangporn Duangthip; Palinee Detsomboonrat

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306367

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 12, 2023
12 Sep 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306367.r001
2 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Marilia Mattar de Amoêdo Campos Velo, Editor PONE-D-23-29346Effects of light curing on silver diamine fluoride-treated carious lesions: A systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Detsomboonrat, 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 May 17 2024 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, Marilia Mattar de Amoêdo Campos Velo 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 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 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 financial disclosure: [This research project is supported by the Second Century Fund (C2F), Chulalongkorn University.]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. 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."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This research project is supported by the Second Century Fund (C2F), Chulalongkorn University.]. 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 project is supported by the Second Century Fund (C2F), Chulalongkorn University.]. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 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: The abstract lacks specific details regarding the date of data collection and the range of languages examined—whether it includes articles solely in English or those in other languages as well. Additionally, there is an inconsistency in the presentation of authors' initials within the methodology section. The term "in vitro" should be italicized throughout the document for proper emphasis. Drawing a conclusion about the potentiation of antimicrobial effects by light based solely on a single referenced article is insufficient and lacks robust support. Furthermore, in the table, distinct sections should be allocated for studies assessing microhardness, antimicrobial effects, and other effects of Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF). The entire text requires thorough editing to address these language and grammatical inaccuracies. ****** 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.] 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.0306367.r002
Revision 1
24 Apr 2024 Author Response Journal requirements: Response item 1: We edited the manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements Response item 3 : We edited ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections Response item 4: We added state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." in cover letter. Response item 5: We removed any funding-related text from the manuscript Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: The abstract lacks specific details regarding the date of data collection and the range of languages examined—whether it includes articles solely in English or those in other languages as well. Response: We added the date of data collection and the range of languages examined in the abstract (Page 1 Line 8-9). Additionally, there is an inconsistency in the presentation of authors' initials within the methodology section. Response: We checked the presentation of authors' initials within the methodology section consistently. The term "in vitro" should be italicized throughout the document for proper emphasis. Response: We changed "in vitro" to be “in vitro” throughout the document. Drawing a conclusion about the potentiation of antimicrobial effects by light based solely on a single referenced article is insufficient and lacks robust support. Response: We understand and acknowledge your point that relying solely on one reference may not provide robust support for our conclusion. Upon reflection, we agree that a more comprehensive analysis incorporating multiple studies would enhance the credibility and robustness of our findings. To address this concern, we have revised the conclusion section to regard the potential potentiation of antimicrobial effects by light in conjunction with SDF treatment, based solely on a single referenced article. It also underscores the importance of further research to validate these findings in clinical settings (Page 16 Line 223-227). Furthermore, in the table, distinct sections should be allocated for studies assessing microhardness, antimicrobial effects, and other effects of Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF). Response: In Table 3, distinct sections have been allocated for studies assessing the micro hardness, antimicrobial effects, and other effects of Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) in outcome column. However, the author has reordered it so that studies with similar outcomes are grouped. The entire text requires thorough editing to address these language and grammatical inaccuracies. Response: The entire text was edited to address these language and grammatical inaccuracies by the Papercheck. We also attached the certificate of editing. And We uploaded our figure file to PACE digital diagnostic tool and edited. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306367.r003
1 May 2024 Decision Letter - Marilia Mattar de Amoêdo Campos Velo, Editor PONE-D-23-29346R1Effects of light curing on silver diamine fluoride-treated carious lesions: A systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Detsomboonrat, 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 15 2024 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, Marilia Mattar de Amoêdo Campos Velo Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The authors have adressed all comments by the reviewer. However, it is still unclear the main research question of this SR. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments:Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) has been proven to be a very useful and effective strategy to treat carious lesions, in particular involving primary teeth. Clinical trials have been conducted all around the world and evidence is robust to indicate this product as an anticariogenic strategy. The purpose of this study was focused in analyze the effect of its combination with light curing as a tool that could enhance its effective, through a systematic review (SR). Only in vitro studies were found according to the criteria, in which the majority (4 of 5) was tested on primary teeth. Based on the available evidences up to now, this study lacks to show a consistent argument to this combination. The observation that the light could improve, with no additional previous evidence of the mechanism of action and the lack of a consistent conclusion, turns this study fragile. However, authors justify this use because of some studies as references 15, 19 and 20. In this first study, Karnowakul et al. 2022 state that the improved performance of the SDF could be attribute to “When the silver particles are exposed to light, the shape of the particles tends to change from spherical to plate-like triangular, square, or hexagonal”. However, the mechanism is still not explained. In the second study, the mechanism of the combination is attributed to laser in a different condition, since the laser is used in particular to dentin condition and not towards the SDF. In the third one, the authors use methods that show more mineralized condition but once again only speculate that the light can be useful. Authors claims that there is no (SR) related to this subject, but it is not quite an argument that it need to be done. Please, the research question needs to be clearly. [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.0306367.r004
Revision 2
6 Jun 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We have addressed your concerns and made revisions accordingly. Below is our detailed response to each of the points raised: 1. Purpose and Research Question Reviewer Comment: The research question needs to be clearly stated. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the manuscript to clearly articulate our research question. The research question now reads: "Does the combination of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) and light curing enhance the effectiveness of SDF in treating carious lesions in primary teeth compared to SDF alone?" This has been updated in the Introduction section in Line 74-77 2. Lack of Consistent Argument and Mechanism of Action Reviewer Comment: The study lacks a consistent argument for the combination of SDF and light curing. The mechanism by which light curing could improve the effectiveness of SDF is not well-explained, and the conclusions drawn are not robust. Response: We expand the Discussion section to include a more comprehensive review of the potential mechanisms and add references. Specifically, we discuss the hypothesis that light exposure could alter the shape and activity of silver particles, as suggested by Karnowakul et al. (2022). We also elaborate on the possible interactions between light and SDF that might contribute to increased mineralization and antimicrobial activity. Nevertheless, due to the limited number of studies with a lack of clinical studies to support the effectiveness, we acknowledge that the mechanism behind is not yet fully understood and a robust conclusion cannot be drawn. 3. Justification for Systematic Review Reviewer Comment: Authors claim that there is no systematic review (SR) related to this subject, but this alone is not a sufficient justification for the study. Response: We have revised the Introduction to better justify the significance of our systematic review in Line 81-87. We emphasize the clinical relevance of exploring adjunctive treatments to enhance the efficacy of SDF, the growing interest in non-invasive dental treatments, and the potential implications for dental care. We also highlight the gap in the literature regarding the combination of SDF and light curing, which our study aims to address. 4. In Vitro Studies and Evidence Robustness Reviewer Comment: Only in vitro studies were found according to the criteria, with the majority (4 out of 5) tested on primary teeth. The study lacks robust evidence for the combination of SDF and light curing. Response: Agree, we add your valuable comment to the manuscript in line 235-237. “due to the limited number of five in-vitro studies (4 out of 5 tested on primary teeth) and a lack of clinical studies, the mechanism of using Light curing to improve the clinical outcomes is not yet fully understood. Therefore, a robust conclusion cannot be drawn.” We have clarified the limitations of our systematic review, particularly the reliance on in vitro studies, in the Limitations section in Line 251-252. We discuss the implications of these limitations for the generalizability of our findings to clinical practice and emphasize the need for future clinical trials to establish robust evidence in Line 252-256. Additionally, we have provided a more detailed summary of the in vitro studies included, highlighting their methodologies, findings, and relevance to the research question in line258-261. 5. References and Specific Studies Reviewer Comment: Specific studies (references 15, 19, and 20) are cited, but their relevance and mechanisms are not well explained. Response: We have revisited the referenced studies and provided a more detailed discussion of their findings and relevance to our research. In the revised manuscript, we explicitly discuss how each study contributes to our understanding of the potential benefits and mechanisms of combining SDF with light curing in Line 203-205, 217-230. We also critically analyze the limitations of these studies and how they inform our systematic review in Line 230-237. We hope that these revisions satisfactorily address your concerns. We believe that the changes made have strengthened our manuscript, and we appreciate the opportunity to improve our work based on your insightful feedback. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response2 to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306367.r005
16 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Marilia Mattar de Amoêdo Campos Velo, Editor Effects of light curing on silver diamine fluoride-treated carious lesions: A systematic review PONE-D-23-29346R2 Dear Dr. Detsomboonrat, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306367.r006
Formally Accepted
27 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Marilia Mattar de Amoêdo Campos Velo, Editor PONE-D-23-29346R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Detsomboonrat, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Dr. Marilia Mattar de Amoêdo Campos Velo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306367.r007

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 .