Dear Editor-in-Chief
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled
‘What Do Dental Students Learn at School and Perform in the Field Regarding Deep Dentin Caries?"’’ to ‘Journal of Dentistry Indonesia’’. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on my manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on my paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Also we sent the article to English proofread check and submitted the certificate of proof.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely
Dr. Leyla Kerimova
Comments from Reviewer 1
1- The Tittle of the article not in line with the objective of the study
What do the title intend to? The title should be in line with the objective of the study. The effect of changing method on deep caries lesion in dental school cirriculum toward dentists’ treatment options.
Thank you for pointing this out. We send our study to English proofread check then we changed the title as ‘’ The Practices of Treating Deep Carious Lesions Compared with the Dental Curriculum in Turkish Dentistry‘’
2-Should be written to the results of statistical analysis…There were statistically significant difference between female and male dentists preferred on less invasive treatment (p<0.05)
Thank you for this assessment. The suggested sentence has been written to the results. Also, necessary corrections regarding ‘’p<0.05’’ have been done.
3-Older dentists? Are they learn the methods of minimally invasive deep caries lesion method in dental school? What is the true meaning of old age? Or graduated how many years ago?
Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, and we have made some additions to this sentence for making it clear. ‘’Relatively older dentists (mean age=41.8)were more prone to prefer complete caries removal even if pulp exposure was likely (p=0.040)’’
4- What does it mean ? The results of Questionnaire-2 revealed that there was no
statistically significant difference between the education time spans of the dental schools and their caries removal approach curriculum (p> 0.05).
Thank you for pointing this misunderstanding out. The sentence was corrected as ‘’The results of Questionnaire-2 revealed that there was no association between the education time spans of the dental schools and their caries removal approach curriculum (p> 0.05)’’.
5- The head of restorative dentistry department should be their lecturer? Why are the results of questionnaire contradicting?
Thank you for pointing this misunderstanding out . All the heads of restorative dentistry departments were lecturers at same time. This statement has been written. The reason for the conflicting results of the two surveys the fact that the Questionnaire-1 was responsed by all dentists, while the Questionnaire-2 was responsed by the heads of departments who provide dentistry education in Turkey.
6- The research methodology needs to be explained more clearly
Thank you for this suggestion. With the purpose of explain the methodology part more clearly some corrections have been made within this part.
Subsection ‘’ Pilot Study’’ has been changed as ‘’ Pilot Study for Questionnaire-1’’ and some relative corrections have been made and highlighted within the text.
‘’The feasibility and functionality of the e-form was tested by senior lecturers and clinical teachers of Restorative Dentistry Department, Baskent University’’
‘’The feasibility and functionality of the e-form was tested by senior lecturers and clinical teachers of Restorative Dentistry Department, Baskent University’’ This statement has been added for both of ’Pilot Study for Questionnaire-1’’ and ‘’Survey Study Based on
Questionnaire-2’’subsections.
‘’All the heads of restorative dentistry departments were lecturers at same time’’ This statement has been included.
7-The result should answered the objective of the study and analyse deeper in discussion
We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript. We have, accordingly, revised and modified the results and discussion parts. Necessary corrections have been made within the text and highlightened.
8- In addition to the above comments, as the reviewer suggested, necessary corrections have been made within the main text and highlightened
Abstract
With the purpose of providing more clarity the aim of the study was been rewritten as ‘’ The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the Turkish dentists’ opinions and
preferences regarding management of deep carious and compare them with modern dental education concept provided by dental schools’’.
Introduction
With the purpose of providing more clarity aim of the study was been rewritten as
‘’Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate Turkish dentists’
opinions and preferences regarding the management of deep carious lesions and to compare their perspectives with the existing contemporary approaches recommended by curriculum of dental schools in Turkey’’.
Material and methods
The name of university revealed for publication within ‘’Ethical Statement’’
Subsections ‘’ Questionnaire-1’’ and Questionnaire-2 have been changed as ‘’Survey Study Based on Questionnaire-1’’ and ‘’Survey Study Based on Questionnaire-2’’, respectively.
Conclusion
‘’Interestingly, elder dentists were tended to behave less invasively in some approaches’’
changed as’’ Interestingly, relatively elder dentists were tended to behave less invasively in some approaches’’.
With the rewriting of the purpose of the study, the discrepancy between the conclusion and the objective of the study has been eliminated.
Reviewer 2
This paper was well written and adds valuable knowledge to the current literature. Nonetheless minor revision might be needed.
Thank you for your valuable and encouraging feedback on my manuscript. I have incorporated your suggestions throughout the manuscript.
1-Keywords should be according to standard of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).
Thank you for pointing this out. The keywords were changed as ‘’ dental education; dental caries; healthcare surveys; professional practice gaps; operative dentistry ‘’ according to standard of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).
2-Corresponding to the cross sectional study design, please check and add a statement that the study complies with STROBE guidelines.
The study has been checked and the statement ‘’ This cross-sectional study complies with STROBE guidelines for cross sectional studies.
3-Provide number of respondents invited and to calculate and report the participation rate (% of response rate) in the result section.
As suggested by the reviewer, we have added this information to the ‘’Results’’.
‘’ The response rate of the Questionnare-1 study was 3.1% of 19.640 of dentists linked to TDA . As only e-mail addresses of the dentists were presented at TDA, general information regarding year of birth, experience, gender, place of practice, practice setting, and field of practice (specialization) of the non-responders were not available.’’
‘’Questionnaire-2 was answered by 65 schools (89%-response rate)’’
4-If reliability (Cronbach alpha analysis and test and re test analysis) and validity measures were not conducted, it should be acknowledged in the limitation paragraph. The
questionnaire's floor and ceiling effect should be reported.
Thank you for these suggestions. We consulted our statistician about the points you highlighted. We made corrections in line with the suggestions of our statistician.
5-Table 1 should be revised as a simple descriptive table, some of the variables might be reported with mean (SD)
Thank you for this suggestion. The simplified Table 1 was added.
