Tooth discoloration caused by nanographene oxide as an irrigant and intracanal medicament in the endodontic treatment of extracted single-rooted teeth: An ex-vivo study

Abbas Abbaszadegan; Zeinab Rafiee; Bahar Asheghi; Ahmad Gholami

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325430

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 25, 2024
25 Jul 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325430.r001
Decision Letter - Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Editor Dear Dr. Rafiee, 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. Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 21 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. 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, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, BDS, MScD.Endo, Ph.D. Endo, FDS RCS (Eng), FPFA, MFDS RCGS (Glasg) 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 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The Vice-Chancellery of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for supporting this study (Grant #24674)" 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. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This manuscript is based on the postgraduate thesis by Dr. Zeinab Rafiee. The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Vice-Chancellery of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for supporting this study (Grant #24674). We also thank Dr. Alireza Nobakht for the English language editing of this paper and Dr. Ahmad Baseri for his assistance with statistical analyses." We note that you have provided funding information that is 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 Vice-Chancellery of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for supporting this study (Grant #24674)" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO authors have competing interests" Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well [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? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: 1. Sample size calculation needs to be added in Materials and methods with relevant references. 2. Results needs to be explained further in detail. 3. Tables needs to be more detailed by adding the headers for columns- more clarity. 4. Other comments are highlighted in the manuscript changes in the presentation and grammar errors Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I have reviewed your original study and have a few comments for improvement. Please follow the points below: Abstract: The abstract is well written. Keywords: Revise the keywords and include at least six MeSH terms related to your work. Introduction: The introduction needs to be updated with the latest information and enriched with the best literature to support this study and enhance readability. I suggest including the following references in the first introductory paragraph: a) Hayat, Fatima, et al. "Nanoparticles in endodontics." Biomaterials in Endodontics (2022): 195-209. b) Khurshid, Z., Alqurashi, H., & Ashi, H. (2024). Advancing Environmental Sustainability in Dentistry and Oral Health. European Journal of General Dentistry. Discuss the sustainability of your new work and how it opens avenues for future sustainable dental biomaterials. In the paragraph "The most common intracanal medicaments are triple antibiotic paste and calcium hydroxide (Ca (OH)2), whereas the most common irrigants... questionable disinfection ability, and tooth discoloration have led studies toward removing these limitations in order to obtain ideal materials," please provide original studies to support this statement. This critique sets the stage for your original study. To support the statement "Nanoparticles (with a diameter of ≤100 nm) have become popular antimicrobial... Their larger charge density, surface area, and area lead to more interaction with bacteria," you can cite the following papers: Tekin, Bahar, et al. "Effect of micro-arc oxidation coatings with graphene oxide and graphite on osseointegration of titanium implants—an in vivo study." The Saudi Dental Journal 36.4 (2024): 591-595. Najeeb, Shariq, et al. "Dental applications of nanodiamonds." Science of Advanced Materials 8.11 (2016): 2064-2070. Khurshid, Z., Zafar, M., Qasim, S., Shahab, S., Naseem, M., & AbuReqaiba, A. (2015). Advances in nanotechnology for restorative dentistry. Materials, 8(2), 717-731. Methods and Methodology: Mention the city and country in the statement "These teeth were referred for extraction to the surgery ward of Shiraz Dental School." Provide a sample figure in the "Preparation of the teeth" section. The materials preparation section is not detailed enough. Instead of "It should be noted that for the preparation of medicaments containing nanographene oxide and silver-imidazolium nanoparticles, each of these materials was mixed," there should be a separate heading for material preparation with detailed steps. How did you check the esthetic of the prepared tooth after intervention? Did you use any esthetic scale to validate this? Results and Discussion: The results and discussion sections need careful revision. The writing is weak, and the authors often link previous work by merely citing author names without explaining the previous work in their own words. Conclusion: The conclusion is not well written. Revise the conclusion to better summarize the study's findings and include future prospects. Thank you for considering these suggestions. I believe addressing these points will significantly improve the quality and impact of your study. Best regards ****** 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-24-30140_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325430.r002
Revision 1
13 Oct 2024 Author Response PONE-D-24-30140 Tooth discoloration caused by nanographene oxide as an irrigant and intracanal medicament in the endodontic treatment of extracted single-rooted teeth: an ex-vivo study Dear Editor, We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments, which have significantly helped improve the quality of our manuscript. In response, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript and addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewers in a point-by-point manner. The changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. Please find below our responses to the reviewers’ comments. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Zeinab Rafiee 1. PLOS ONE Style Requirements Comment: 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 Response: We have adjusted the reference formatting and ensured that our manuscript now adheres to all PLOS ONE style requirements, including those for file naming. 2. Grant Information Discrepancy Comment: The grant information provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. Please ensure the correct grant numbers are provided in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Response: The grant number and ethics approval number are distinct as per our institutional policy. To avoid confusion, we have selected and included the appropriate code in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Financial Disclosure and Role of Funders Comment: Please state the role of the funders in your study. If they had no role, include the statement: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Response: We confirm that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This statement has been added to the cover letter, and we kindly ask you to update the online submission form accordingly. 4. Funding in Acknowledgments Section Comment: Please remove any funding-related text from the Acknowledgments section. Funding information should only appear in the Funding Statement. Response: We have removed the grant number and funding-related text from the manuscript body and Acknowledgments section as per your policy. The Funding Statement has been updated accordingly. 5. Competing Interests Comment: Please declare any Competing Interests. If there are none, state: “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” Response: We have declared that no competing interests exist, and this information has been provided in the cover letter. Please update the online submission form accordingly. 6. Data Availability Statement Comment: Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form. Response: We have provided a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, stating: “All data are included in the manuscript and/or supporting information files.” Reviewer Comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Sample Size Calculation Comment: Please add a sample size calculation in the Materials and Methods section with relevant references. Response: The sample size used in this study was based on a previous calculation performed using GPower 3.1 software, and this has been added to the Materials and Methods section. 2. Results Clarification Comment: Please explain the Results section in more detail. Response: We have expanded the Results section to provide greater clarity. 3. Tables Enhancement Comment: Tables need to be more detailed, including headers for columns to improve clarity. Response: The tables have been revised to include headers and provide a clearer presentation of the data. Statistical significance is indicated for each group and time point. 4. Grammar and Presentation Comment: Other comments regarding grammar and presentation have been highlighted in the manuscript. Response: All grammatical and presentation-related comments have been addressed and revised in the manuscript. Reviewer #2: 1. Keywords Revision Comment: Revise the keywords to include at least six MeSH terms. Response: The keywords have been revised as suggested, and now include six MeSH terms related to the study. 2. Introduction Update Comment: The introduction should be updated with the latest information, including references to recent literature. Response: The introduction has been updated for better readability and to incorporate the suggested references. We have also included information on the sustainability of this work, which opens new avenues for future research in sustainable dental biomaterials. 3. Supporting Literature for Statements Comment: Provide original studies to support specific statements in the Introduction. Response: We have cited the recommended original studies to support the statements regarding commonly used irrigants and nanoparticles, enhancing the scientific foundation of the Introduction. 4. Material Preparation and Esthetic Validation Comment: Provide more details on the materials preparation and esthetic validation methods. Response: Two new subheadings have been added to the Materials and Methods section to detail the preparation of the irrigants and medicaments. Esthetic validation was performed using the VITA Easyshade Compact spectrophotometer, and this information has been included in the manuscript. 5. Results and Discussion Revision Comment: The Results and Discussion sections need to be revised for clarity, and the linkage to previous work should be explained more clearly. Response: Both the Results and Discussion sections have been extensively rewritten for clarity, and connections to previous work are now better explained. 6. Conclusion Revision Comment: The conclusion needs to be revised to better summarize the study’s findings and future prospects. Response: The Conclusion section has been revised to more effectively summarize the findings and highlight potential future directions in dental biomaterials research. Thank you for considering our revised manuscript. We look forward to your feedback. Best regards, Zeinab Rafiee Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325430.r003
Decision Letter - Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Editor Dear Dr. Rafiee, 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. Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 03 2025 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. 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 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, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, BDS, MScD.Endo, Ph.D. Endo, FDS, FPFA, MFDS 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: Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> 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 Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: All previous comments have been addressed by the author. 1. The reference for Evaluation of Tooth discoloration needs to be added in the methodology. ****** 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: Prof Dr Mithra N Hegde ******** [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325430.r004
Revision 2
25 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments, which have significantly helped improve the quality of our manuscript. In response, the mentioned reference was added to the methodology section of the manuscript. Thank you for considering our revised manuscript. Sincerely, Zeinab Rafiee Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325430.r005
Decision Letter - Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Editor Dear Dr. Rafiee, 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. Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 21 2025 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. 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 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, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, BDS, MScD.Endo, Ph.D. Endo, FDS, FPFA, MFDS 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: Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #3: manuscript is well written and addressed all the procedures in detail. hence it can be accepted for publication Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 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 #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes: Prof. Dr. Faiza Awais ******** [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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Revised manuscript.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325430.r006
Revision 3
22 Feb 2025 Author Response We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments, which have significantly helped improve the quality of our manuscript. In response, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript and addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewers in a point-by-point manner. The changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Zeinab Rafiee Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewer_comments_auresp_3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325430.r007
Decision Letter - Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Editor Tooth discoloration caused by nanographene oxide as an irrigant and intracanal medicament in the endodontic treatment of extracted single-rooted teeth: an ex-vivo study PONE-D-24-30140R3 Dear Dr. Rafiee, 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, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, BDS, MScD.Endo, Ph.D. Endo, FDS, FPFA, FICD, MFDS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325430.r008
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Editor PONE-D-24-30140R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rafiee, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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 Prof Dr. Mohmed Isaqali Karobari Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325430.r009

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 .