Transfer accuracy of partially enclosed single hard vacuum-formed trays with 3D-printed models for lingual bracket indirect bonding: A prospective in-vivo study

Viet Anh Nguyen; Thuy Anh Nguyen; Hong Le Doan; Thi Hanh Pham; Bich Ngoc Doan; Thi Thanh Thuy Pham; Viet Hoang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316208

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 19, 2024
10 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Claudia Trindade Mattos, Editor PONE-D-24-35775Transfer accuracy of partially enclosed single hard vacuum-formed trays with 3D-printed models for lingual bracket indirect bonding: A prospective in-vivo studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nguyen, 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 found your work to be both relevant to the field and methodologically sound. The study design demonstrates careful consideration, and the manuscript is generally well-written. However, some points need further description in the text or clarification, as pointed by the reviewers. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 25 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, Claudia Trindade Mattos, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 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 include a caption for figures 1, 2 and 3. 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments: We have carefully reviewed your work and found it to be both relevant to the field and methodologically sound. The study design demonstrates careful consideration, and the manuscript is generally well-written. Based on the peer review process, we invite you to submit a revised version that addresses the concerns raised by the reviewers, which will help strengthen the study and make it adequate for publication. Please provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments along with your revised manuscript, clearly indicating where changes have been made in the text. [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting manuscript. The aim was to evaluate the clinical transfer accuracy of partially enclosed single hard vacuum-formed trays based on three-dimensional (3D) printed models for lingual bracket indirect bonding. 1) Abstract “Transfer errors were statistically below the clinically acceptable thresholds for all dimensions but torque.” It seems that this sentence is not complete. 2) In my opinion, this work goes against the current trend of indirect bonding techniques. Nowadays some software allow for building the tray virtually and direct printing it. It might be interesting to assess the accuracy of 3D printing trays for transferring the bracket position. 3) “For each tooth, the brackets on both the target and reference data were aligned with the bracket patch. The 89 bracket patch was then attached to the target data followed by superimposing the target data onto the 90 reference data using a local best-fit algorithm that considered only the tooth surfaces.” I think that it is not clear if the region of reference for the superimposition was the bracket patch or the tooth surface. 4) Considering that the superimposition was based on the tooth surface (best-fit), how was standardized the cropping to obtain the same size and shape of the crown for both time points? “The post-bonding scan data and the virtual model with ideal bracket positions, serving as the target and reference data, were segmented into individual teeth, removing the gingiva and retaining only the clinical crowns and brackets.” 5) “The manufacturer-provided virtual bracket patches without bracket bases were set at the origin of a coordinate system. For each tooth, the brackets on both the target and reference data were aligned with the bracket patch.” “The new coordinates of the bracket patch would indicate the bracket transfer errors (Fig 2).” I suggest that the authors add description about how the differences between the target and reference data were obtained, such as: Which landmarks were used to take the linear measurements? Which planes or lines were used to take the angular measurements? Which software was used to obtain the measurements? Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, Congratulations on your manuscript. The paper is well written and well designed. Has several limitations and interpretation of the results should be done carefully as you described. I suggest publication. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316208.r001
Revision 1
14 Nov 2024 Author Response November 14th, 2024 Dear Editorial Board, PLOS ONE, We have revised the manuscript thoroughly according to the comments of the reviewers. Any revisions made in our manuscript document were highlighted in red. Please help us review the manuscript again. Sincerely, --------------------------------- Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting manuscript. The aim was to evaluate the clinical transfer accuracy of partially enclosed single hard vacuum-formed trays based on three-dimensional (3D) printed models for lingual bracket indirect bonding. 1) Abstract “Transfer errors were statistically below the clinically acceptable thresholds for all dimensions but torque.” It seems that this sentence is not complete. Thank you for your comment, we have made this sentence more clear: Transfer errors were statistically below the clinically acceptable thresholds for all dimensions except torque. 2) In my opinion, this work goes against the current trend of indirect bonding techniques. Nowadays some software allow for building the tray virtually and direct printing it. It might be interesting to assess the accuracy of 3D printing trays for transferring the bracket position. Thank you for your comment. We have added the comparison with 3D-printed trays to the discussion section: This study assesses a modified design for vacuum-formed trays, diverging from the current trend of utilizing directly 3D-printed trays for indirect bonding. However, using single vacuum-formed trays with 3D-printed models is more cost-effective than direct 3D-printing of trays, due to simplified design and reduced post-processing requirements [12]. As no studies in the literature have evaluated the accuracy of 3D-printed indirect bonding trays for lingual brackets, this study's findings are compared with those from a study using 3D-printed trays for labial brackets [4]. That study reported mean transfer errors of 0.10 mm mesiodistally, 0.10 mm buccolingually, 0.18 mm occlusogingivally, 2.47° in rotation, 2.01° in tip, and 2.55° in torque. While the linear transfer errors were within the clinically acceptable threshold, the angular errors were not. Notably, all transfer errors in that study exceeded those observed in the current study. This discrepancy may be attributed to the flexibility of the tray material and the inadequate bracket retention within the tray, as silicone and modeling wax were necessary to secure brackets in a similar study utilizing 3D-printed trays [9]. Furthermore, as both the 3D-printing material and the orthodontic adhesive are light-cured, their adhesive natures may interact, potentially hindering tray removal and causing tearing [12]. 3) “For each tooth, the brackets on both the target and reference data were aligned with the bracket patch. The bracket patch was then attached to the target data followed by superimposing the target data onto the reference data using a local best-fit algorithm that considered only the tooth surfaces.” I think that it is not clear if the region of reference for the superimposition was the bracket patch or the tooth surface. Thank you for your comment. We have made the superimposition process more clear: For each tooth, the brackets on both the target and reference data were initially aligned with the bracket patch, constituting the first and second superimpositions. Subsequently, the bracket patch was attached to the target data followed by superimposing the target data and bracket patch combination onto the reference data using a local best-fit algorithm that considered only the tooth surfaces. 4) Considering that the superimposition was based on the tooth surface (best-fit), how was standardized the cropping to obtain the same size and shape of the crown for both time points? “The post-bonding scan data and the virtual model with ideal bracket positions, serving as the target and reference data, were segmented into individual teeth, removing the gingiva and retaining only the clinical crowns and brackets.” Thank you for your comment. We have added more descriptions on the 3D-data editing: The post-bonding scan data and the virtual model with ideal bracket positions, serving as the target and reference data, were first roughly aligned. Then, they were segmented into individual teeth, removing the gingiva and retaining only the clinical crowns and brackets. This initial alignment ensured consistent cropping and facilitated the subsequent superimposition based on the tooth surface. 5) “The manufacturer-provided virtual bracket patches without bracket bases were set at the origin of a coordinate system. For each tooth, the brackets on both the target and reference data were aligned with the bracket patch.” “The new coordinates of the bracket patch would indicate the bracket transfer errors (Fig 2).” I suggest that the authors add description about how the differences between the target and reference data were obtained, such as: Which landmarks were used to take the linear measurements? Which planes or lines were used to take the angular measurements? Which software was used to obtain the measurements? Thank you for your comment. We have added more descriptions about the measuring process: The centers of the manufacturer-provided virtual bracket patches’ without bracket bases were set at the origin of a coordinate system, with the x, y, and z-axis parallel to the mesiodistal edge, vertical edge, and buccolingual edge of the bracket slot, respectively. The new coordinates of the bracket patch's center in the x, y, and z directions would indicate the bracket linear transfer errors. Meanwhile, the angular transfer errors would be represented by the rotation of the bracket slot's edges projected onto the respective coordinate planes (Fig 2). The 3D inspection software (Meshmixer, Autodesk, USA) was utilized to obtain these measurements. ------------------------ Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, Congratulations on your manuscript. The paper is well written and well designed. Has several limitations and interpretation of the results should be done carefully as you described. I suggest publication.. Thank you for your kind commendation. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316208.r002
9 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Claudia Trindade Mattos, Editor Transfer accuracy of partially enclosed single hard vacuum-formed trays with 3D-printed models for lingual bracket indirect bonding: A prospective in-vivo study PONE-D-24-35775R1 Dear Dr. Nguyen, 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, Claudia Trindade Mattos, 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 #1: 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 #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Congratulations on your excellent work! Thank you for addressing all my comments and suggestions properly. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316208.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Claudia Trindade Mattos, Editor PONE-D-24-35775R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nguyen, 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. Claudia Trindade Mattos Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316208.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 .