Tip and Torque Accuracy According to the ISO 27020:2019 Norm in Currently Available Pre-Adjusted Orthodontic Brackets
, Alfonso Alvarado Lorenzo 2, Angel Zhou Wu 1, Riccardo Aiuto 3 and Milagros Adobes Martin 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is overall well-written and reports on an interesting topic.
I would suggest the authors to add a photo of the experimental setting with the digital stereo microscope.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you so much for the time and effort spent in reviewing our manuscript. As indicated a photo of the experimental setting was added (Line 123), the corresponding caption was introduced and of figures renamed accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper " Tip and Torque accuracy according to the ISO 27020:2019 norm
in currently available preadjusted Orthodontic brackets" is of some interest.
The abstract is clear and concise.
The introduction is exhaustive.
Materials and methods and Results are well conducted and described.
Discussion and conclusions are clear enough.
The references are appropriate.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, Thank you so much for the time and effort spent in reviewing our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper titled “Tip and Torque accuracy according to the ISO 27020:2019 norm 2 in currently available preadjusted Orthodontic brackets” is an original investigation aiming to find out any differences between the declared information of the preadjusted appliances and the real ones.
The introduction clearly shows the aim and the clinical relevance of the investigation; however, it should be briefly added some information regarding currently literature about this topic.
The methods are correctly described, and intra-operator and inter-operator reliability of the measurements were calculated. Maybe it should be added in the inclusion criteria that all the bracket system selected for the investigation have torque information in the base.
Limitations are clearly reported and also indicate the future prospective on investigation about this topic.
Author Contributions is missing.
Otherwise, the article is good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3, Thank you so much for the time and effort spent in reviewing our manuscript. The information inclusion criteria were updated according to your suggestion (Line 97). The author contributions were updated as indicated (Line 458-464)
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
The article is well written and well presented.
In the attached file, you will see the highlighted minor errors I found.
1- there is no need for a final point in the title.
2- is the author Riccardo Aiuto from the same affiliation as Milagros Martin?
3- in the introduction, references are without space between the anterior word. Also, throughout the discussion section.
4- in line 103, "a member of the research group ( )," do you like to introduce some information inside the parenthesis?
5- font type in Y-axis of figure 4.
6- resize the graphs of Figures 5 and 6.
7- please correct the format of table 4.
8- please standardize and correct unit degrees. Also, the final point in inches.
9- In discussion, the authors already pointed out the limitations of their study, which I do not assume as critical limitations, but I respect their evaluation. However, I believe starting conclusions, commenting "within the limitations of our study", is not necessary. Actually, as a reader how wants fast information, I recommend introducing, in conclusion, some values, for example: "stainless steel brackets the torque information built in the bracket base can be different from the declared one (MEAN AND SD) and in some cases be out of the tolerance limit (??) established by ISO 27020: 2019. The mismatch from the declared (MEAN AND SD) and the actual values (MEAN AND SD) should therefore be compensated with wire-bending if needed." and something similar on tip paragraph.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3, Thank you so much for the time and effort spent in reviewing our manuscript.
1- The point was removed according to your indication
2- The institutional affiliation was checked and corrected as suggested
3- Consistency among in text references was checked and ensured as indicated by your valuable suggestion according to the norms for contributors
4- Information about the group members in charge of the different research steps was added as you highlighted (Line 112 and 114)
5- Consistency of font type have been checked
6- The Figures were resized as suggested
7- Table 4 have been formatted in order to ensure consistency along the text
8- Inches and degrees abbreviations have been standardized along the main text
9- The conclusion section have been modified according to your valuable suggestion. The phrase “Within the limitations….” have been removed. The Torque section have been reformulated and values have been added to make it more informative. The Tip values section was maintained since the tip values were accurate and within the norm and the tolerance limits in all the evaluated systems.
