Next Article in Journal
Null Mismatch Repair Proteins Expression Reveals the Temporal Molecular Events in Lynch Syndrome-Related Cancers
Next Article in Special Issue
Case Report: A Sudden Thyroid-Related Death of a 15-Year-Old Girl
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Ultrasound Attenuation Imaging Using a Linear versus a Conventional Convex Probe: A Volunteer Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Microbiome Identification of Forensically Relevant Biological Fluids: A Pilot Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Correlations between Dental Age, Skeletal Age, and Mandibular Morphologic Index Changes in Turkish Children in Eastern Anatolia and Their Chronological Age during the Pubertal Growth Spurt Period: A Cross-Sectional Study

Diagnostics 2024, 14(9), 887; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14090887
by Fatma Saraç 1,*, Büşra Baydemir Kılınç 2, Periş Çelikel 1, Murat Büyüksefil 1, Muhammet Burak Yazıcı 1 and Sera Şimşek Derelioğlu 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Diagnostics 2024, 14(9), 887; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14090887
Submission received: 16 March 2024 / Revised: 12 April 2024 / Accepted: 15 April 2024 / Published: 24 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forensic Diagnosis)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Some typos and writing need to be corrected, for example:

a) Line 2: Skelatal should be Skeletal

b) Keywords: forensic dentistry; dental age

c) Line 29: (OPG)

d) Line 239: Although

e) some spacing existed

2. Are there any differences between Eastern and other regions in Turkiye? Please include a bit of explanation in the discussion part.

3. What is the purpose of determining the age of the 9-15-year group? Is there any relevance to the forensic investigation as mentioned in the conclusion?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Professional English editing should be included.

Author Response

 

  1. Grammar errors and misspellings were corrected
  2. Amendments explaining regional differences / variations were made in the discussion section (Lines 364-367)
  3. The reason why we chose 9-15 years of age range as a basis for the study and its forensic /judicial importance was explained in the introduction section (Lines 77-87)
  4. Language was revised.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written, focused, well-presented. It might make sense to include the geogaphical limitation in the title. The main thing I am missing is the justification, why this age frame is so important to understand in such a detail.

Some minor issues are in the file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

 

  1. Minor amendments were done. (Please check the annex)
  2. Title was rewritten in accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation.
  3. The reason why we chose 9-15 years of age range as a basis for the study was explained in the introduction section (Lines. 77-87)

 

Back to TopTop