Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 9, 2024
Decision Letter - Sameh Attia, Editor

PONE-D-24-15938Investigation of the inter-rater reliability of three different plaque indices used in patients with fixed orthodontic appliancesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Erbe,

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 Dec 06 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,

Sameh Attia, MS

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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/bitstream/20.500.12030/8919/1/comparison_of_different_plaqu-20230307140914730.pdf In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its Supplementary Information files). Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;- The values used to build graphs;- The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[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

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: Dear Authors

the topic of the manuscript is interesting but some changes are necessary before taking it into consideration for publication. Here are my suggestions to imrpve it:

- try to better describe the DPIA procedure to ensure the anonymity of patients. Explain what the acronym means and briefly what it consists of ;

- better describe about the analyzed 50 photographs. Please explain whether the photo is of a single tooth or a group of teeth. Which surface (mesial, vestibular, occlusal...), what type of photo (intra or extra-oral, occlusal, lateral, 3/4,). What camera was used? Did you use flash? Who took the photos? Where the patients have been enrolled?

- please explain wh etegories: low, medium, and high orthodontic experience. how these 3 groups have been created?

- Who the observers are: hygienists, students, dentists, orthodantists, dental assistents?

- The observers were divided into 3 categories: low, medium, and high orthodontic experience. But how these 3 groups were created?

- Statistics is well done.

- references: 47/59 are older than 10 years old.

Please address these concerns.

Best regards

Reviewer #2: The authors find that the inter-rater reliability of three plaque indices varies based on the evaluators' orthodontic experience. The Attin and mBB indices show the highest agreement among evaluators, while the TQH index has the lowest. Orthodontic experience does not significantly affect reliability. Evaluators with little experience show the highest agreement with the Attin index. Calibration of raters is recommended to achieve more consistent classifications. The authors conclude that the Attin and mBB indices are preferable for patients with multibracket appliances, whereas the TQH index is less suitable. Training and calibration are essential for effective application of plaque indices.

I would like to the authors for their valuable efforts on this study. It was a pleasure to read.

**********

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: Yes:  Cinzia Maspero

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.

Revision 1

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Concern of the reviewer: 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

Our answer: Thank you very much for your comments, we have implicated the changes suggested.

Concern of the reviewer: We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/bitstream/20.500.12030/8919/1/comparison_of_different_plaqu-20230307140914730.pdf

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Our answer: Thank you very much for your recommendation, we rephrased any duplicated text.

Concern of the reviewer: We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its Supplementary Information files).

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Our answer: We provide the raw data as an Excel file, further we provide the R markdown file and the corresponding html output file. This output file contains a description of the data and the results for kappa and ICC.

When preparing to make the data available we re-run the analysis using a current version of R. The results for kappa and ICC were identical to previous analyses. We added 95% confidence intervals.

Therefore, SAS is no longer mentioned.

We updated the methods section accordingly.

Concern of the reviewer: We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Our answer: Thank you very much for your feedback, we added the reference!

Reviewer 1:

the topic of the manuscript is interesting but some changes are necessary before taking it into consideration for publication. Here are my suggestions to imrpve it:

Concern of the reviewer: try to better describe the DPIA procedure to ensure the anonymity of patients. Explain what the acronym means and briefly what it consists of

Our answer: Thank you very much for your comment. We added additional information on the DPIA method in the „Materials and Methods“ section.

Concern of the reviewer: better describe about the analyzed 50 photographs. Please explain whether the photo is of a single tooth or a group of teeth. Which surface (mesial, vestibular, occlusal...), what type of photo (intra or extra-oral, occlusal, lateral, 3/4,). What camera was used? Did you use flash? Who took the photos? Where the patients have been enrolled?

Our answer: Thank you very much for your feedback. We added additional information to our „Materials and Methods“ section.

Concern of the reviewer: please explain wh etegories: low, medium, and high orthodontic experience. how these 3 groups have been created?

Our answer: Thank you for your comment, we have tried to make the information about the three groups more comprehensive.

Concern of the reviewer: Who the observers are: hygienists, students, dentists, orthodantists, dental assistents?

Our answer: Thank you very much for your comment, we have clarified the information about the evaluators in the „Materials and Methods“ section.

Concern of the reviewer: The observers were divided into 3 categories: low, medium, and high orthodontic experience. But how these 3 groups were created?

Our answer: Thank you for your comment, we have tried to make the information about the three groups more comprehensive in the „Materials and Methods“ section.

Concern of the reviewer: Statistics is well done.

Our answer: Thank you very much, we appreciate the positive feedback.

Concern of the reviewer: references: 47/59 are older than 10 years old.

Our answer: Thank you very much for your comment, we have used this opportunity to update our literature references; however, the important original sources have been retained.

Reviewer 2:

The authors find that the inter-rater reliability of three plaque indices varies based on the evaluators' orthodontic experience. The Attin and mBB indices show the highest agreement among evaluators, while the TQH index has the lowest. Orthodontic experience does not significantly affect reliability. Evaluators with little experience show the highest agreement with the Attin index. Calibration of raters is recommended to achieve more consistent classifications. The authors conclude that the Attin and mBB indices are preferable for patients with multibracket appliances, whereas the TQH index is less suitable. Training and calibration are essential for effective application of plaque indices.I would like to the authors for their valuable efforts on this study. It was a pleasure to read.

Our response: Thank you very much for the feedback, we truly appreciate it!

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf
Decision Letter - Sameh Attia, Editor

Investigation of the inter-rater reliability of three different plaque indices used in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances

PONE-D-24-15938R1

Dear Dr. Erbe,

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,

Prof. Dr. Sameh Attia, MS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sameh Attia, Editor

PONE-D-24-15938R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Erbe,

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. Sameh Attia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .