Evaluation of Dental Surface after De-Bonding Orthodontic Bracket Bonded with a Novel Fluorescent Composite: In Vitro Comparative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, the authors have demonstrated an interesting protocol to utilize fluorescent composites as orthodontic bracket bonding materials and how it can improve the surgery efficiency as well as debonding quality. The protocols developed are novel and results are presented nicely. Below are several comments that I suggest the authors address to improve the accessibility of their work to the general audience.

1. For figure 3, the authors should state whether the photos were captured before debonding or afterward. If possible, it is suggested for the authors to show an example tooth before and after debonding process.
2. For the ARI grade level used to characterize the quality of residue after debonding, it is suggested to include typical micrographs illustrating the difference between different grades.
3. The writing becomes a little fragmented in the middle of section 4 “Discussion”. It is suggested that the authors could reorganize their paragraphs and combine those paragraphs with only one sentence to others.

Author Response

thanks for your observation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

ABSTRACT:

“florescent composite” should be “fluorescent composite”.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement checklist guide was developed for observational clinical studies. In this manuscript an in vitro trial was conducted to compare different debonding techniques, therefore a more appropriate checklist like CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies) must be followed. See for reference “Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(4):301-304.”

Figure 2 could be eliminated. A figure showing enamel after debonding should be added.

“postgraduate doctors” means “postgraduate orthodontic students”?

“Each of them executed both new de-bonding procedure of fluorescent composite (DFC) and “standard” de-bonding of non-fluorescent composite (DSC) in randomized blinded order.” How blinding was obtained, if as shown in figure 3 it is very easy to distinguish between the two tested composites?

“a 12-flute tungsten carbide burs” should be “a 12-flutes tungsten carbide bur”

“The duration of the removal was measurement for a subgroup of 20 teeth with similar anatomic structures (canines and incisors) right after the removal of the orthodontic bracket at the start of the removal with burs performed by similarly experienced operators.” Expert or novice operators? Why a comparison was not made between experts and novices?

RESULTS:

“All the operators performing de-bonding procedures with fluorescent composite found the use of this novel composite easier and therefore faster in comparison to the conventional composite used in DSC group.” How this aspect was evaluated? With a questionnaire? It must be declared in the Materials and Methods section.

“Further in vivo studies with professionals are needed to determine if this new method requires less operating time.” This kind of comments should be placed in the Discussion section.

Table 2. The meaning of the abbreviations UDB and SDB should be declared.

DISCUSSION:

“operators with low experience.” should be “inexperienced operators”.

“Montasser et al. have proven that ARI grades are sig-nificantly different when testing is carried out with naked-eye and 10-20x magnification; but they are similar when using 10x magnification and naked eye evaluation.” The meaning of this sentence is not clear.

“which could diminish plaque retention” should be “which could decrease plaque retention”.

The manuscript would benefit from an English language revision.

Author Response

Thanks for your observation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx