Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study

Radiographic assessment of dental post and core... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976" }, "headline": "Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an...", "datePublished": "2023-08-14T16:10:31", "dateModified": "2024-03-28T16:16:40", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Turki Alshehri" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nourhan M. Aly" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Raand Altayyar" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Deena Alghamdi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Shahad Alotaibi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Passent Ellakany" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Dental post and core is one of the common procedures performed after endodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to radiographically assess the quality of post and core procedures performed by dental students at different education levels in addition to determining the most critical errors encountered during their clinical practice. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study design was conducted in the College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University. A total of 550 periapical radiographs (PAs) of cemented posts were retrieved from the records of patients treated by dental students. Parameters and guidelines for assessing the quality of post treatment have been determined and statistically analyzed. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The study included 502 students and most of them were females (66.5%). Data were obtained from 502 patients (62% females) with fiber posts used in 98.2% of the cases. About 50% of the posts were inserted in premolars, 62.9% in the upper arch, and 66.7% were restored with crowns as a final restoration. Regarding the quality of posts, 98.4% showed good preparation quality and 98% showed good radiographic quality. The post diameter was equal to 1/3 of the root diameter in 31.9% of the cases; post length was equal to 2/3 of root length in 5% of the cases and equal to or more than crown height in all cases (100%). Length of the remaining gutta percha (GP) was between 3–5 mm in 38.8%, and there was no gap between the post and remaining GP in 95.6% of the cases. There were no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational levels regarding the quality of post placement. Conclusions The quality of post and core procedures performed by students showed acceptable radiographic quality and were within the recommended standards. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976", "name": "Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different..." } } ] } Home Browse Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Alshehri T, Aly NM, Altayyar R et al. Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137421.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] Previously titled: Radiographical assessment of post and core placement errors encountered by Saudi dental students at different educational levels Turki Alshehri https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7575-1587 1 , Nourhan M. Aly 2 , Raand Altayyar 1 , Deena Alghamdi 1 , Shahad Alotaibi 1 , Passent Ellakany https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2995-8111 3 Turki Alshehri https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7575-1587 1 , Nourhan M. Aly 2 , [...] Raand Altayyar 1 , Deena Alghamdi 1 , Shahad Alotaibi 1 , Passent Ellakany https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2995-8111 3 PUBLISHED 28 Mar 2024 Author details Author details 1 College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt 3 Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Turki Alshehri Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Nourhan M. Aly Roles: Formal Analysis, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Raand Altayyar Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Deena Alghamdi Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Shahad Alotaibi Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Passent Ellakany Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Dental post and core is one of the common procedures performed after endodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to radiographically assess the quality of post and core procedures performed by dental students at different education levels in addition to determining the most critical errors encountered during their clinical practice. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study design was conducted in the College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University. A total of 550 periapical radiographs (PAs) of cemented posts were retrieved from the records of patients treated by dental students. Parameters and guidelines for assessing the quality of post treatment have been determined and statistically analyzed. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The study included 502 students and most of them were females (66.5%). Data were obtained from 502 patients (62% females) with fiber posts used in 98.2% of the cases. About 50% of the posts were inserted in premolars, 62.9% in the upper arch, and 66.7% were restored with crowns as a final restoration. Regarding the quality of posts, 98.4% showed good preparation quality and 98% showed good radiographic quality. The post diameter was equal to 1/3 of the root diameter in 31.9% of the cases; post length was equal to 2/3 of root length in 5% of the cases and equal to or more than crown height in all cases (100%). Length of the remaining gutta percha (GP) was between 3–5 mm in 38.8%, and there was no gap between the post and remaining GP in 95.6% of the cases. There were no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational levels regarding the quality of post placement. Conclusions The quality of post and core procedures performed by students showed acceptable radiographic quality and were within the recommended standards. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Dental students, Post and Core, Radiograph, Gutta Percha, Endodontically treated. Corresponding Author(s) Passent Ellakany ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Passent Ellakany Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2024 Alshehri T et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Alshehri T, Aly NM, Altayyar R et al. Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137421.2 ) First published: 14 Aug 2023, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137421.1 ) Latest published: 28 Mar 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137421.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 Title: was changed as follows; Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study Keywords: Keywords were adjusted according to the MeSH terms. Introduction: The introduction was improved, with a better structure including clinical/educational relevance of study and gap of knowledge, hence why the study was conducted Methods: More details about sample size calculation were added. Also, details and guidelines of endodontic treatment and post and core treatment were added with references. The rubrics of assessing the post and core treatment quality were clarified as well as the calibration method of investigators. Figures: the resolution was improved to be clearer. Results : the results were clarified and explained in details. Also, the number of excluded data due to missing information was added. Discussion: The information about the initiation of the endodontic pre-clinical and clinical teaching and training of the students was added. Also, justification for the absence of significant difference between the students of different educational years was added. Comparisons of our findings with similar studies were added and justified. Limitations and strengths were clarified based on the study design and findings. Conclusion: The content of the conclusion was modified to match the research objectives and results. Title: was changed as follows; Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study Keywords: Keywords were adjusted according to the MeSH terms. Introduction: The introduction was improved, with a better structure including clinical/educational relevance of study and gap of knowledge, hence why the study was conducted Methods: More details about sample size calculation were added. Also, details and guidelines of endodontic treatment and post and core treatment were added with references. The rubrics of assessing the post and core treatment quality were clarified as well as the calibration method of investigators. Figures: the resolution was improved to be clearer. Results : the results were clarified and explained in details. Also, the number of excluded data due to missing information was added. Discussion: The information about the initiation of the endodontic pre-clinical and clinical teaching and training of the students was added. Also, justification for the absence of significant difference between the students of different educational years was added. Comparisons of our findings with similar studies were added and justified. Limitations and strengths were clarified based on the study design and findings. Conclusion: The content of the conclusion was modified to match the research objectives and results. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yuanita Lely Rachmawati See the authors' detailed response to the review by Manal Matoug-Elwerfelli READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Endodontic treatment plays a major role in ensuring the survival of tooth and success of post and core treatment. 1 Restoration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) with extensive coronal tooth loss requires the placement of dental posts and core that adds retentive features to the coronal restoration. 2 Several post systems were developed either in the form of custom-made posts using gold or non-precious metals, or prefabricated stainless steel or titanium posts. 3 Aesthetic posts were recently introduced as alternative options including ceramic and glass fiber posts with variable shapes and sizes. 4 Success of post and core procedures depends on following the proper sequence of the treatment plan in addition to the accuracy of each step performed prior to post placement. 5 One of the reliable methods used for evaluating the post placement procedure is taking periapical radiographs (PAs) prior to, during and after post cementation. 6 Several factors affect the longevity of dental posts, such as proper filling and obturation, acceptable apical seal, and absence of clinical and radiographic signs and symptoms. 7 Dental students are required to perform several clinical procedures as a prerequisite for graduation. One of these procedures is post and core placement in ETT followed by a final prosthetic restoration. 5 , 8 Students perform post and core procedures in their clinical years following well-designed rubrics for each procedure under the supervision of their faculty supervisors to achieve the optimum outcome in each step of the treatment plan. 5 , 6 Accordingly, these rubrics provide proper assessment of the students’ practice and skills level, and also helps in improving their ability to perform self-assessment for each specific dental procedure. The evaluation criteria of the post and core quality include coronal tooth preparation, radicular canal preparation and post-operative cementation of the fiber post. Several studies illustrated the capability of undergraduate dental students in post placement in ETT among Saudi Universities. 5 , 8 , 9 However, no studies were conducted to assess the students’ abilities and skills in post and core placement in the Eastern Province region. The study was conducted to address the common errors encountered in post and core procedures performed by dental students. By recognizing these errors, faculty members can develop a curriculum that focuses on these specific issues and teaches students how to avoid or correct them. This will help prevent complications that may arise during these procedures. Additionally, exposing students to failure cases and teaching them how to handle clinical situations will enhance their knowledge and improve their performance. By learning from these experiences, students can develop better skills and become more proficient in their clinical practice. Hence, the aim of this study was to radiographically assess the quality of post and core performed by dental students at different educational levels in addition to determining the most critical errors encountered during their clinical practice. The null hypothesis states that there would be no statistically significant differences in the performance of dental students at different educational levels. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in the College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University. The sample size was estimated assuming 80% study power and 5% alpha error. 10 According to Muthar et al. 11 study, the acceptable sample size was 119 samples. The study was approved by the institution research board (IRB-2022-02-285) of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. A total of 550 digital periapical radiographs (PAs) recorded using parallel technique were saved digitally on radiographic software (MiPACS Dental Enterprise Viewer 3.1.1404, Medicor Imaging, Charlotte, NC, Weasis is a free software available as a medical DICOM viewer) at the college of dentistry. ETT restored with cemented fiber posts were retrieved from the records of patients. The cases included in this study were those treated by dental students at Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University Dental Hospital from 2018 till 2022. Since this study was conducted retrospectively, patient consent was achieved before starting the treatment; as a step of the routine hospital procedures. The investigators maintained the anonymity of all extracted data, ensuring that patients' identities were kept undisclosed. Inclusion criteria were set as follows: (1) dental students started clinical practice of endodontic treatments as well as prosthetic courses, starting from 4 th year till the 6 th year as well as students of internship program, (2) cemented post and core procedures on optimum ETT, (3) non-surgical root canal treatment (4) availability of complete radiographic records (a minimum of three good quality periapical radiographs: a preoperative, working length and postoperative radiographs). Exclusion criteria were set as follows: (1) permanent teeth with uncompleted endodontic treatment, (2) retreatment cases, (3) teeth previously treated surgically with apicectomy, and (4) dental records with missing or poor quality (non-diagnostic) radiographs. Medicor Imaging Picture Archiving and Communication System was used to evaluate PAs quality as either acceptable according to the absence of following items; cone cut, teeth overlap, elongation, or shortening or unacceptable. 15 Post and core treatments quality were also assessed in the extracted PAs by two trained investigators (S.A. and D.A) according to a previously published criteria ( Figure 1 and Table 1 ). 5 , 9 , 11 Before the assessment, the investigators underwent a calibration session to review the set criteria and analyze several post-obturation radiographs. The findings were discussed and an agreement was reached on the criteria of assessment. In this study, all clinical cases treated by students in the clinical sessions were approved and supervised by endodontic and prosthetic faculty member. The assigned clinical cases to the students were done by and endodontic faculty member where the cases were of low difficulty according to the American Association of Endodontics Case Difficulty Assessment Form and Guidelines. 12 Endodontic treatments were initiated by using either SS hand or engine-driven ProTaper Universal (PTU) files (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) followed by lateral condensation obturation technique using gutta percha cones and epoxy resin-based sealer (AH plus sealer, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Post and core treatments were performed in the presence of rubber dam isolation according to the protocol of treatment in the dental school and under supervision of prosthodontic clinical staff where the average of staff to student ratio in the clinic was 1:8. However, the ratio in the internship was higher almost 1:10. The gutta percha was removed using a Gates drill (size 3) and a low-speed drill provided by the manufacturer of the post-system (glass fiber post; RelyX (3M ESPE) ® Tapered post) Self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200/3M ESPE-U200; Maxcem Elite/Kerr-MAX; Clearfil SA Cement/Kuraray-CSA) was used to cement either the glass fiber or the metal posts (Dentatus Classic Surtex ® Posts, New York, USA) used. Dental arch, tooth number, and the type of post (metal or fiber) were recorded in an excel sheet. Moreover, the assessment of the quality of canal preparation (acceptable: outline of the preparation was following the canal contour and unacceptable: canal preparation did not follow the canal outline or ledge resulted during preparation) and the quality of PAs were added to the excel sheet where the followed evaluation criteria of PAs were extracted from a previous study criteria. 5 , 9 , 11 , 13 The length of the placed post was measured starting from the beginning of the restoration to the apical tip of the post as well as the crown height and root length which were measured from the cementoenamel junction to the root apex. Additionally, the length of the remaining gutta-percha in the canal, the root width and post width at the middle half of the root, and the gap between the post and gutta-percha if available, were it was measured using a digital ruler of the viewer software. Any abnormalities noticed in the PAs were also recorded in the sheet. Figure 1. Assessment criteria of post and core treatment quality. Table 1. Assessment guidelines of post and core treatment quality. Assessment guidelines Unacceptable (0) Acceptable (1) Ideal (2) Amount of remaining gutta percha 1–3 mm >5.1 mm 3.1–5 mm Gap between remaining gutta percha and post 1.1–2 mm 0.1–1 mm 0 mm Post width to root width ratio >0.5 0.34–0.5 0.33 Post length-to-root length ratio Reversed (0) 2/1 Minimal (1) 1/1 Optimal (2) 1/2 or 2/3 Quality of radiographs Unacceptable (0) Cone cut, elongation, shortening, teeth overlap Acceptable (1) Ideal dimensions of oral structures Radiographic abnormalities Available (0) Absent (1) Statistical analysis Descriptive data were calculated as frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations (SD). Comparisons between the three study groups were done using chi-square test for qualitative variables, and one-way ANOVA for quantitative variables. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS for Windows (Version 23.0). P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Alternative proprietary free suggested software is ocscsistatistics. Results Data were obtained from 502 patients (62% females) with fiber posts used in 98.2% of the cases after excluding 48 cases due to the lack of complete data ( Table 2 ). About 62% of the treated cases were females. The cases assessed were treated by 348 fifth and sixth year students (69%), 101(20.1%) fourth year students and 53 (10.5%) interns. Most of the students were females (66.5%). Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the study sample (n=502). Variable Categories Program level χ 2 P value 4 th (n=101) 5 th and 6 th (n=348) Interns (n=53) Total (n=502) N (%) Patient gender Male 53 (52.5%) 124 (35.6%) 14 (26.4%) 191 (38%) 0.002 * Female 48 (47.5%) 224 (64.4%) 39 (73.6%) 311 (62%) Student gender Male 42 (41.6%) 103 (29.6%) 23 (43.4%) 168 (33.5%) 0.02 * Female 59 (58.4%) 245 (70.4%) 30 (56.6%) 334 (66.5%) * Statistically significant at p value <0.05. Table 3 shows the different parameters of included posts. About 50% of the posts were inserted in premolars, followed by anterior teeth and molars respectively (28.1% and 21.7%). Also, 62.9% of treated teeth were in the upper arch, and 66.7% restored with crowns as a final restoration while the rest of the cases were restored with composite restorations only. Regarding the quality of posts, about 98% showed good preparation and radiographic quality. The men value of post length was 15.79 mm where the longest posts were set by interns 15.97 while the shortest posts were seated by the 4 th year students 15.67 mm. The mean value of remaining GP in all treated cases was 6.19 mm with lowest reading among interns 5.77 mm followed by 4 th year 5.92 and 5 th and 6 th years 6.33 mm. No radiographic abnormalities were reported in all evaluated cases. Table 3. Evaluation parameters of the included posts (n=502). Variable Categories Program level χ 2 P value 4 th 5 th and 6 th Interns Total N (%) Arch Maxillary 71 (70.3%) 212 (60.9%) 33 (62.3%) 316 (62.9%) 0.23 Mandibular 30 (29.7%) 136 (39.1%) 20 (37.7%) 186 (37.1%) Type of tooth Anterior 28 (27.7%) 95 (27.3%) 18 (34%) 141 (28.1%) 0.61 Premolar 51 (50.5%) 180 (51.7%) 21 (39.6%) 252 (50.2%) Molar 22 (21.8%) 73 (21%) 14 (26.4%) 109 (21.7%) Type of post Fiber 99 (98%) 342 (98.3%) 52 (98.1%) 493 (98.2%) 0.98 Metal 2 (2%) 6 (1.7%) 1 (1.9%) 9 (1.7%) Quality of preparation Good 99 (98%) 342 (98.3%) 53 (100%) 494 (98.4%) 0.61 Poor 2 (2%) 6 (1.7%) 0 (0%) 8 (1.6%) Quality of radiographs (PA) Good 99 (98%) 342 (98.3%) 52 (98.1%) 492 (98%) 0.73 Poor 2 (2%) 6 (1.7%) 1 (1.9%) 10 (2%) Length of post Mean (SD) 15.67 (2.46) 15.80 (2.86) 15.97 (3.08) 15.79 (2.80) 0.82 Remaining GP Mean (SD) 5.92 (1.81) 6.33 (1.80) 5.77 (1.36) 6.19 (1.77) 0.10 Gap between post and GP Yes 7 (6.9%) 12 (3.4%) 3 (5.7%) 22 (4.4%) 0.29 No 94 (93.1%) 336 (96.6%) 50 (94.3%) 480 (95.6%) Type of final restoration Crown 53 (52.5%) 249 (71.6%) 33 (62.3%) 335 (66.7%) 0.001* Composite 48 (47.5%) 99 (28.4%) 20 (37.7%) 167 (33.3%) Radiographic abnormalities Yes 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1.00 No 101 (100%) 348 (100%) 53 (100%) 502 (100%) As for post assessment according to the prosthetic criteria ( Table 4 ); the post diameter was equal to 1/3 of the root diameter in 31.9% of the cases while 63.3% of the cemented posts were larger than 1/3 of root diameter. The post length was equal to 2/3 of root length in 5% of the cases but exceeding 2/3 of the root length in 92.6% of the cases. In case of evaluating the post length towards the crown height, all of the cemented posts were equal to or more than crown height (100%). The length of the remaining GP was between 3–5 mm in 38.8%, while 61% of the cases exceeded 5 mm of the GP remaining in the root. No gap was observed between the post and remaining GP in 95.6%. In assessing the students’ performance and clinical skills in treating ETT with post and core restorations, no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational years were noticed according to the criteria mentioned in the methods. Table 4. Posts’ assessment according to the ideal prosthetic criteria. Variable Categories Program level χ 2 P value 4 th 5 th & 6 th Interns Total N (%) Post diameter Less than 1/3 root width 70 (69.3%) 218 (62.6%) 30 (56.6%) 318 (63.3%) 0.17 Equals 1/3 root width 25 (24.8%) 117 (33.6%) 18 (34%) 160 (31.9%) More than 1/3 root width 6 (5.9%) 13 (3.7%) 5 (9.4%) 24 (4.8%) Post length Less than 2/3 root length 5 (5%) 6 (1.7%) 1 (1.9%) 12 (2.4%) 0.27 Equals 2/3 root length 4 (4%) 20 (5.7%) 1 (1.9%) 25 (5%) More than 2/3 root length 92 (91.1%) 322 (92.5%) 51 (96.2%) 465 (92.6%) Remaining GP length Less than 3 mm 0 (0%) 1 (0.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.2%) 0.12 Between 3-5 mm 49 (48.5%) 122 (35.1%) 24 (45.3%) 195 (38.8%) More than 5 mm 52 (51.5%) 225 (64.7%) 29 (54.7%) 306 (61%) Discussion Success and longevity of post and core restorations depend on several criteria such as post preparation dimensions in relation to tooth dimensions, post length relative to tooth length in addition to material of the used post. 14 All these criteria can be radiographically evaluated, thus, the current study aimed to radiographically assess the quality of post and core procedures performed by dental students at different education levels in addition to determining the most critical errors encountered during their clinical practice. In the current dental school, 4 th year students start the clinical sessions of endodontic treatments and prosthodontics as well. However, in the 3 rd year, the students start the preclinical sessions of endodontics and prosthodontics. Students in all dental years are supervised by faculty member even in the internship year and all the treated cases are evaluated by the specialized faculty member for the initial approval to treat the case till finalizing the procedure required for the case. The student faculty ratio in preclinical and clinical years is 1:8, while in the internship the ration is 1:10. The study findings showed that 98.4% of the students did post preparations of acceptable quality. According to the criteria mentioned in the methodology, about 31.9% of students placed posts of diameter equivalent to 1/3 of the root diameter, while only 5% of the students used posts of length equal to 2/3 of root length in their cases. The acceptable length of the remaining GP (3–5 mm) was reported in 38.8% of the cases. Nonetheless, no gap was noticed between the posts and remaining GP in 95.6% of the cases which ensures optimum adaptation of the posts cemented by the students. The quality of students’ performance in post placement was acceptable and comparable among different clinical educational years. Thus, the null hypothesis was accepted. Results of the current study showed that 63.3% of the posts were cemented in maxillary teeth which comes in line with previous studies. 5 , 9 , 15 , 16 Ease of isolation, absence of saliva and absence of tongue movements that can obscure vision and affect the quality of post restoration in the maxillary arch might be a valid explanation for this percentage. 17 In case of type of the teeth restored, students commonly treated premolars followed by anterior teeth, while molars were less frequently treated. Similarly, previous studies reported that premolars were the most restored teeth with post and cores by undergraduate dental students. 9 , 11 , 18 Another study showed that incisors were the most frequently restored teeth with posts followed by premolars. 5 Selection of teeth by students might be related to the ease of post preparation and placement, so most students prefer treating single rooted teeth as several complications can be encountered while treating multi-rooted teeth including perforations and root fractures. 19 Metal posts were placed in nine cases only, while fiber posts were cemented in 493 cases. The high esthetic demand of patients was the cause of this difference where metal post can affect the shade of the definitive restoration. Also, placement of fiber posts provides better adhesion to the tooth through resin cements, comparable flexural strength, and modulus of elasticity to dentin and reduces the percentage of vertical root fractures that might result from torqueing the serrated metal posts. 20 – 22 Most of the restored teeth (95.6%) showed no gap between the cemented post and GP. This comes in agreement with Almaghrabi et al . 16 who stated that about 93% of cases did not show any gaps. Also, Mathar and Almutairi 11 reported that 82.9% of cases showed no gaps between the cemented post and GP. In contrast, Baik study 18 revealed that only 65% of treated cases had no gap between post and GP. The higher percentage in the current study might be due to the different treatment protocol or materials used. Also, the number of student faculty ratio might be a crucial factor that needs to be acknowledged in improving the percentage of success or survival rates. In evaluating the post length in relation to root length, 92.6% of the cases were following the optimum guidelines of exceeding 2/3 of the root length. Similarly, Almaghrabi et al. 16 showed that post length was less than 2/3 of the root length in 61% of cases. However, Meshini et al. 5 found that the post to root length ratio in almost half of the patients was 2:1. The study findings showed that almost 31% of the cases were treated with post diameter equivalent to 1/3 of the root diameter. In line with these findings, previous studies reported that the diameter of the cemented posts was equivalent to 1/3 of the root. 23 , 24 Additionally, another study conducted at Qassim University dental clinics showed that 81% of the post cases were of length equal to 1/3 of the root. 11 This optimum post diameter dimensions agrees with Trabert et al . 25 who recommended a post diameter not exceeding 1/3 of the root width to increase fracture resistance of the restoration 24 in addition to reducing the possibility of root fracture. 26 This criteria was also shown in other studies where 89.5% and 81.6% the cases included posts of diameter 1/3 of the root diameter. 5 , 18 On the contrary, Peutzfeldt et al. 27 reported high failure rate (68% out of 176 cases) among posts with a diameter less than or equal 1/3 of the root. Additionally, 76% out of 237 cases showed post failure with a post length equal or exceeding 50% of the root length. These conflicting results might be due to the difference in the type of the posts used as glass fiber posts were not used in Peutzfedlt 27 study. Moreover, the cases of the current study were treated under supervision of faculty members following the rubrics mentioned in the methods unlike the situation in Peutzfedlt 27 cases which were treated by unknown practitioners in private clinics. The ideal amount of the remaining GP in the root after post preparation ranges between 3-5 mm, and this was found in 38.8% of the cases, while 61% of cases included more than 5 mm of remaining GP. Similarly, a study done by Mathar and Almutairi 11 found 28% of the assessed cases had 3-5 mm of remaining GP and 61% included more than 5 mm of remaining GP. The presence of higher percentage of cases including more than 5 mm GP remaining might be justified by the precautionary attitude of students in treating clinical cases. 11 Also, Al Maghrabi et al. 16 who used the same criteria in their cases, reported 3-5 mm remaining GP in 68% of cases done in King Abdulaziz university. 16 Another study performed in Jazan University found that 55.7% of the assessed cases were within the same range of remaining GP. 5 The strength of this study is inclusion of students of different educational levels starting from the initial clinical year (4 th year) to the internship year can provide comprehensive findings on the students’ performance in treating ETT with post and core. The high percentages of cases following the standard guidelines of post and core placement and cementation among variable teeth (incisors, premolars, and molars) as well as the lack of difference in clinical level between the students of different educational years might be justified by the presence of faculty supervision with each student in the educational clinics to limit the complications or errors that can happen in the patient’s mouth. Additionally, following explicit calibrated rubrics by students and faculty members in placing post and core restorations and assessing their quality might have positively affected the treatment outcome. Inclusion of different students of various dental educational levels presents generalized findings on the performance of students in the dental college of Imam Abdurrahman University. The variation of ETT assessed in the study can provide broad understanding to the errors encountered that might be relevant to the tooth type or arch type. This can improve the dental curriculum of undergraduate students in order to enhance their knowledge and psychomotor skills. However, the current study had some limitations such as being restricted to Eastern province so the findings cannot be generalized to the broader dental population in Saudi Arabia. Also, it included undergraduate students with the exclusion of postgraduate students since the postgraduate endodontic and prosthodontics boards were recently introduced in the dental college, and the total number of enrolled students does not exceed ten students. Further studies are needed to compare the performance of undergraduate and postgraduate students. Moreover, assessment of post and core quality needs to be extended in other Saudi dental colleges to detect the weaknesses in students’ performance. Conclusions The successful post and core treatment relies on multiple factors related to the success of endodontic treatment as well as the procedure and type of post and core placed. In the current study, dental students demonstrated satisfactory skill in post and core placement for endodontically treated teeth according to the guidelines. The majority of the dental students restored the endodontically treated teeth with glass fiber posts. No significant difference was noticed in the skills of dental students of different educational levels. The presence of supervision from faculty members in both endodontics and prosthodontics fields might be a fundamental cause of this high percentage of acceptable treatments in addition to treating cases of low difficulty according to AAE assessment form and guidelines. Data availability Zenodo. Radiographical Assessment of Post and Core Placement Errors Encountered by Saudi Dental Students at Different Educational Levels, 10.5281/zenodo.8126789 . 28 This project contains the following underlying data: • Post data.xlsx (post and core data done by students). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). References 1. Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Al-Omari MA, Al-Hiyasat AS: Radiographic technical quality of root canal treatment performed by dental students at the Dental Teaching Center in Jordan.J Dent.2004; 32 (4): 301–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Sorrentino R, Di Mauro MI, Ferrari M, et al. : Complications of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and single crowns or fixed dental prostheses—a systematic review.Clin Oral Investig.2016; 20 (7): 1449–57. Publisher Full Text 3. Akkayan B, Gülmez T: Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems.J Prosthet Dent.2002; 87 (4): 431–7. Publisher Full Text 4. Goracci C, Ferrari M: Current perspectives on post systems: a literature review. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56 (Suppl.1): 77–83. Publisher Full Text 5. Meshni AA, Al Moaleem MM, Mattoo KA, et al. : Radiographic Evaluation of Post-core Restorations fabricated by Dental Students at Jazan University. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Jan 1; 19 (1): 66–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Mudaysh Bajawi A, SA AL-S, Abdullah Alhadi A, et al. : Radiographic Assessment of the Quality of Root Canal Treatments Performed by Practitioners with Different Levels of Experience.Biomed Pharmacol J.2018; 11 (3): 1609–16. Publisher Full Text 7. Chandra A: Discuss the factors that affect the outcome of endodontic treatment. Aust Endod J. 2009; 35 (2): 98–107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 8. Singh AK: Dentists’ Knowledge, Practices, and Mishaps in Relation to Post Placement for Endodontically Treated Teeth. Int J Med Oral Res. 2022; 7 (2): 39. Publisher Full Text 9. Mendonça CG, Almeida JRV de, Takeshita WM, et al. Radiographic analysis of 1000 cast posts in Sergipe state, Brazil.Rev Odontol UNESP.2017; 46 ;46: 255–60. Publisher Full Text 10. Johnston KM, Lakzadeh P, Donato BMK, et al. Methods of sample size calculation in descriptive retrospective burden of illness studies.BMC Med Res Methodol.2019 9; 19 (1): 9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 11. Mathar MI, Almutairi AR: Radiographic Assessment of the Quality of Post & Core Restorations Performed by Dental Students at Qassim University Dental Clinics. Integr J Med Sci. 2020; 12 : 7. 12. AAE Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment Form and Guidelines. https://www.aae.org/specialty/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/01/CaseDifficultyAssessmentFormFINAL2022.pdf 13. Almogbel A, Alolayan S: QUALITY OF PERIAPICAL RADIOGRAPHS TAKEN BY UNDERGRADUATE DENTAL STUDENTS AT QASSIM UNIVERSITY. Dent Stud Res. 2014; 1 (1): 10–15. 14. de Andrade GS , de SFA SG , Augusto MG, et al. : Post-endodontic restorative treatments and their mechanical behavior: A narrative review.Dent Rev.2023; 3 (1): 100067. Publisher Full Text 15. Jamani KD, Aqrabawi J, Fayyad MA: A radiographic study of the relationship between technical quality of coronoradicular posts and periapical status in a Jordanian population. J Oral Sci. 2005; 47 (3): 123–128. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 16. Almaghrabi J, Alesawi A, Attar E, et al. : Radiographic Analysis of Posts Performed by Undergraduate Dental Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2022; 14 : 37–43. Publisher Full Text 17. Camcı H, Salmanpour F. Effect of saliva isolation and intraoral light levels on performance of intraoral scanners.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2020; 158 (5): 759–66. Publisher Full Text PubMed Abstract | 18. Baik KM: Quality of post and core placement by final year undergraduate dental students. PLoS One. 2023; 18 (11): e0294073. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 19. Alfahadi HR, Al-Nazhan S, Alkazman FH, et al. : Clinical and radiographic outcomes of regenerative endodontic treatment performed by endodontic postgraduate students: a retrospective study.Restor Dent Endod.2022; 47 (2): e24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 20. Jayasenthil A, Solomon-Sathish E, Venkatalakshmi-Aparna P, et al. : Fracture resistance of tooth restored with four glass fiber post systems of varying surface geometries-An in vitro study.J Clin Exp Dent.2016; 8 (1): e44–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 21. Uthappa R, Mod D, Kharod P, et al. : Comparative evaluation of the metal post and fiber post in the restoration of the endodontically treated teeth. J Dent Res Rev. 2015; 2 (2): 73–77. Publisher Full Text 22. Wang X, Shu X, Zhang Y, et al. : Evaluation of fiber posts vs metal posts for restoring severely damaged endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int. 2019; 50 (1): 8–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 23. Nimigean VR, Buţincu L, Nimigean V: A radiographic study regarding post retained restorations. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2012; 53 (Suppl 3): 775–779. 24. Adanir N, Belli S: Evaluation of Different Post Lengths’ Effect on Fracture Resistance of a Glass Fiber Post System. Eur J Dent. 2008; 02 (1): 23–28. Publisher Full Text 25. Trabert KC, Caputo AA, Abou-Rass M. Tooth fracture\3-A comparison of endodontic and restorative treatments.J Endod.1978; 4 (11): 341–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 26. Deutsch AS, Musikant BL, Cavallari J, et al. Root fracture during insertion of prefabricated posts related to root size.J Prosthet Dent.1985; 53 (6): 786–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 27. Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A, Asmussen E. A survey of failed post-retained restorations.Clin Oral Investig.2008; 12 (1): 37–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 28. Alshehri T, Aly N, Altayyar R, et al. Radiographical Assessment of Post and Core Placement Errors Encountered by Saudi Dental Students at Different Educational Levels.2023. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Aug 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt 3 Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Turki Alshehri Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Nourhan M. Aly Roles: Formal Analysis, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Raand Altayyar Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Deena Alghamdi Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Shahad Alotaibi Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Passent Ellakany Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 28 Mar 2024, 12:976 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137421.2 version 1 Published: 14 Aug 2023, 12:976 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137421.1 Copyright © 2024 Alshehri T et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Alshehri T, Aly NM, Altayyar R et al. Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.137421.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 28 Mar 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Moussa R. Reviewer Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163330.r282296 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2#referee-response-282296 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 31 May 2024 Rania Moussa , Department of Substitutive Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163330.r282296 The article retrospectively studies the quality of endodontic treatment followed by post- and core treatment of patients attending a teaching institute and treated by students at different educational levels. The aim of the study is clear and scientifically relevant to ... Continue reading READ ALL The article retrospectively studies the quality of endodontic treatment followed by post- and core treatment of patients attending a teaching institute and treated by students at different educational levels. The aim of the study is clear and scientifically relevant to the increased number of emerging dental colleges, where internal auditing and self-evaluation are essential to improving students' competence and preparing them for unsupervised real life. the methodology is well-written and detailed The only comment that is missing in the methodology is that the grouping of the sample is not mentioned while reported in the results. Please add the group details to the methodology The results are well-documented and detailed. Discussion addressed the results very well and referred to relevant literature Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: A prosthodontist and faculty member I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Moussa R. Reviewer Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163330.r282296 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2#referee-response-282296 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rachmawati YL. Reviewer Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163330.r260338 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2#referee-response-260338 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 19 Apr 2024 Yuanita Lely Rachmawati , Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, East Java, Indonesia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163330.r260338 The authors have revised the manuscript as ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors have revised the manuscript as suggested. No further comments from me. Thank you. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Oral health literacy and OoL I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rachmawati YL. Reviewer Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163330.r260338 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2#referee-response-260338 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Aug 2023 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rachmawati YL. Reviewer Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150581.r224915 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v1#referee-response-224915 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 21 Dec 2023 Yuanita Lely Rachmawati , Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, East Java, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150581.r224915 Comments: I appreciate the hard work that all authors have put into this research. However, some details need to be added Keywords Please check the selected words in the MeSH ... Continue reading READ ALL Comments: I appreciate the hard work that all authors have put into this research. However, some details need to be added Keywords Please check the selected words in the MeSH Methods Please explain in more detail about sample size calculation. What Intraoral X-ray imaging unit was used and how the PA technique was taken “These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators”. Please add information related to the investigator: who are they, how they got the training, and how to measure the agreement between them. Figure 1 looks blurry, the writing needs to be clarified. Results At Methods section mentions “A total of 550 periapical radiographs” but in the Result section “The study included 502 students”. Please explain whether the analysis unit was PA or student, and the reasons why there are differences in numbers. One-way ANOVA was used in this study. One-way ANOVA is a statistical test that is used to measure differences in average data on numerical scale variables. The authors can add a table that informs the mean and SD values of the variables. Discussion It is necessary to add references in the first paragraph. Please add the reference of the standard guidelines of post and core placement and cementation among variable teeth Conclusion The content of the conclusion is focused on the research objectives and results Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rachmawati YL. Reviewer Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150581.r224915 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v1#referee-response-224915 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Turki Alshehri , College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and ... Continue reading Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: I appreciate the hard work that all authors have put into this research. However, some details need to be added. • Keywords 1. Please check the selected words in the MeSH • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Keywords were adjusted in the manuscript on page 15. • Methods 1. Please explain in more detail about sample size calculation. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The modifications were done in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 2. What Intraoral X-ray imaging unit was used and how the PA technique was taken? • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. The modification was done in the methods section of the manuscript on pages 4-5. 3. “These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators”. Please add information related to the investigator: who are they, how they got the training, and how to measure the agreement between them. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The assessment method was clarified in the methods section of the manuscript on page 4. 4. Figure 1 looks blurry; the writing needs to be clarified. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Figure resolution was adjusted in the methods section on page 6. • Results 1. At Methods section mentions “A total of 550 periapical radiographs” but in the Result section “The study included 502 students”. Please explain whether the analysis unit was PA or student, and the reasons why there are differences in numbers. • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. This difference in the total number mentioned in the results was due to the missing data of 48 cases, and this statement was added in the results section on page 8. 2. One-way ANOVA was used in this study. One-way ANOVA is a statistical test that is used to measure differences in average data on numerical scale variables. The authors can add a table that informs the mean and SD values of the variables. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Table 1 includes the requested information on page 8. • Discussion 1. It is necessary to add references in the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. References were added to the introduction and rearranged in the reference section page number 14 and 15. 2. Please add the reference of the standard guidelines of post and core placement and cementation among variable teeth • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines used were added in Table 1 and the reference of previous studies (5, 9, 11, 15) where the guidelines were extracted and added in the methods section pages 5-7. • Conclusion 1. The content of the conclusion is focused on the research objectives and results. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: I appreciate the hard work that all authors have put into this research. However, some details need to be added. • Keywords 1. Please check the selected words in the MeSH • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Keywords were adjusted in the manuscript on page 15. • Methods 1. Please explain in more detail about sample size calculation. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The modifications were done in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 2. What Intraoral X-ray imaging unit was used and how the PA technique was taken? • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. The modification was done in the methods section of the manuscript on pages 4-5. 3. “These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators”. Please add information related to the investigator: who are they, how they got the training, and how to measure the agreement between them. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The assessment method was clarified in the methods section of the manuscript on page 4. 4. Figure 1 looks blurry; the writing needs to be clarified. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Figure resolution was adjusted in the methods section on page 6. • Results 1. At Methods section mentions “A total of 550 periapical radiographs” but in the Result section “The study included 502 students”. Please explain whether the analysis unit was PA or student, and the reasons why there are differences in numbers. • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. This difference in the total number mentioned in the results was due to the missing data of 48 cases, and this statement was added in the results section on page 8. 2. One-way ANOVA was used in this study. One-way ANOVA is a statistical test that is used to measure differences in average data on numerical scale variables. The authors can add a table that informs the mean and SD values of the variables. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Table 1 includes the requested information on page 8. • Discussion 1. It is necessary to add references in the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. References were added to the introduction and rearranged in the reference section page number 14 and 15. 2. Please add the reference of the standard guidelines of post and core placement and cementation among variable teeth • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines used were added in Table 1 and the reference of previous studies (5, 9, 11, 15) where the guidelines were extracted and added in the methods section pages 5-7. • Conclusion 1. The content of the conclusion is focused on the research objectives and results. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest avaialbe Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Turki Alshehri , College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and ... Continue reading Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: I appreciate the hard work that all authors have put into this research. However, some details need to be added. • Keywords 1. Please check the selected words in the MeSH • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Keywords were adjusted in the manuscript on page 15. • Methods 1. Please explain in more detail about sample size calculation. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The modifications were done in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 2. What Intraoral X-ray imaging unit was used and how the PA technique was taken? • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. The modification was done in the methods section of the manuscript on pages 4-5. 3. “These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators”. Please add information related to the investigator: who are they, how they got the training, and how to measure the agreement between them. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The assessment method was clarified in the methods section of the manuscript on page 4. 4. Figure 1 looks blurry; the writing needs to be clarified. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Figure resolution was adjusted in the methods section on page 6. • Results 1. At Methods section mentions “A total of 550 periapical radiographs” but in the Result section “The study included 502 students”. Please explain whether the analysis unit was PA or student, and the reasons why there are differences in numbers. • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. This difference in the total number mentioned in the results was due to the missing data of 48 cases, and this statement was added in the results section on page 8. 2. One-way ANOVA was used in this study. One-way ANOVA is a statistical test that is used to measure differences in average data on numerical scale variables. The authors can add a table that informs the mean and SD values of the variables. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Table 1 includes the requested information on page 8. • Discussion 1. It is necessary to add references in the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. References were added to the introduction and rearranged in the reference section page number 14 and 15. 2. Please add the reference of the standard guidelines of post and core placement and cementation among variable teeth • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines used were added in Table 1 and the reference of previous studies (5, 9, 11, 15) where the guidelines were extracted and added in the methods section pages 5-7. • Conclusion 1. The content of the conclusion is focused on the research objectives and results. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: I appreciate the hard work that all authors have put into this research. However, some details need to be added. • Keywords 1. Please check the selected words in the MeSH • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Keywords were adjusted in the manuscript on page 15. • Methods 1. Please explain in more detail about sample size calculation. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The modifications were done in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 2. What Intraoral X-ray imaging unit was used and how the PA technique was taken? • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. The modification was done in the methods section of the manuscript on pages 4-5. 3. “These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators”. Please add information related to the investigator: who are they, how they got the training, and how to measure the agreement between them. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The assessment method was clarified in the methods section of the manuscript on page 4. 4. Figure 1 looks blurry; the writing needs to be clarified. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Figure resolution was adjusted in the methods section on page 6. • Results 1. At Methods section mentions “A total of 550 periapical radiographs” but in the Result section “The study included 502 students”. Please explain whether the analysis unit was PA or student, and the reasons why there are differences in numbers. • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. This difference in the total number mentioned in the results was due to the missing data of 48 cases, and this statement was added in the results section on page 8. 2. One-way ANOVA was used in this study. One-way ANOVA is a statistical test that is used to measure differences in average data on numerical scale variables. The authors can add a table that informs the mean and SD values of the variables. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Table 1 includes the requested information on page 8. • Discussion 1. It is necessary to add references in the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. References were added to the introduction and rearranged in the reference section page number 14 and 15. 2. Please add the reference of the standard guidelines of post and core placement and cementation among variable teeth • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines used were added in Table 1 and the reference of previous studies (5, 9, 11, 15) where the guidelines were extracted and added in the methods section pages 5-7. • Conclusion 1. The content of the conclusion is focused on the research objectives and results. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest avaialbe Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Matoug-Elwerfelli M. Reviewer Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150581.r214866 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v1#referee-response-214866 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 24 Oct 2023 Manal Matoug-Elwerfelli , College of Dental Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Doha, Qatar Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150581.r214866 Comments: I thank the authors for submitting this manuscript and appreciates the resources, time and effort invested by the authors in producing this manuscript. However, I highlight several issues that needs to be addressed. Additionally, the English ... Continue reading READ ALL Comments: I thank the authors for submitting this manuscript and appreciates the resources, time and effort invested by the authors in producing this manuscript. However, I highlight several issues that needs to be addressed. Additionally, the English language and grammar needs to be improved throughout the manuscript. I elaborate on the main issues below: Title Suggested change in title; Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4?-year retrospective study Keywords Please ensure keywords are suitable Mesh terms Abstract To be edited taken the below comments into consideration Introduction The introduction needs to be improved, with a better structure including clinical/educational relevance of study and gap of knowledge, hence why the study was conducted. The authors are advised to read classical references of dental posts such as; Fernandes A. S., Dessai G. S. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 14, (2001). Trope M., Maltz D. O., Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Dent. Traumatol. 1, 108-111 (1985). The authors mention “Accordingly, these rubrics provide proper assessment of the students’ practice and skills level, and also helps in improving their ability to perform self-assessment for each specific dental procedure.” Please elaborate on the rubrics? Consider adding as a supplementary file. Methods As a general comment, The experimental design needs to be explained in more detail. Please read for further guidance; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01679.x https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.002 I have mentioned a few of the most important points that must be included; Any sample size calculation to determine power of the study? Please explain Please add a statement about patient consent was waived due to nature of study. Also please add statement about anonymous patient information status. Please correct; dammam To Dammam Can the authors mention was the post placement placed on primary (non-surgical) root canal treatment or re-treatment cases? How were cases selected for undergraduate students? Please discuss the necessity for preoperative use of the AAE case difficulty assessment form and similar tools, especially in selecting appropriate teeth for inexperienced operators. Which cases were deemed as too difficult for students, and should this strategy be revised, or recommendations made considering the results? Please add; average staff to student ratio during clinical supervision Please provide further details about how the radiographs were taken? Parallel technique? Digital or manually developed? Please provide further details about; post placement and to determine if any errors. Please provide further details about the investigators (These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators). Are they students, specialists, consultants? How many years of training? Were the investigators calibrated? This should be added..How was calibration performed? Please clearly state inclusion and exclusion criteria. Please clearly mention how root canal treatment and canal obturation was performed? The authors mention (the assessment of the quality of canal preparation (acceptable: outline of the preparation was following the canal contour and unacceptable: canal preparation did not follow the canal outline or ledge resulted during preparation) and the quality of PAs were added to the excel sheet where the followed evaluation criteria of PAs were extracted from a previous study criteria (REF 11). Based on what criteria was the post/core assessed? on what criteria was the quality of canal preparation assessed? Please provide a suitable reference. Also the reference for the criteria of PAs is unsuitable, please use international guideline criteria Results The authors state, “There were no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational years regarding the quality of post placement according to the criteria mentioned in the method.” These results are generally non-logical, is the quality of dental post/core placement for a 4 th year dental student comparable to dental interns. Findings of the study need to be explained in more detail. Is the statistical analysis the most appropriate? Please consult a statistician and report the results in details All table to be edited, as per above comment. Please consult a statistician for improvements Discussion Please add suitable reference to the first paragraph. The authors must mention the endodontic pre-clinical and clinical teaching and training that the students have been taught? Additionally, what year do they start endodontic treatment? Post placement? The discussion should consist of comments on the methodologies chosen and comparison with previous studies. The authors keep referring to standard guidelines, please further elaborate. Which international guidelines are the authors referring too? Lack of clinical data to further support radiographic assessment to determine success/survival should be added Please add strengths of study? Additionally limitations can be added, please add Conclusion How was the below statement extracted from the results; “Dental students’ fear of perforations of narrow canals or furcation perforations pushed them to treat mainly premolars and incisors and to use narrower posts than the proper diameter. Therefore, students need to have more confidence in their qualities to improve their clinical skills.” ?? Please remove if not directly extracted from the study results…. Please re-write the conclusion based on the results of the study References Errors in references are noted, To be carefully edited Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No References 1. Fernandes AS, Dessai GS: Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont . 2001; 14 (4): 355-63 PubMed Abstract 2. Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L: Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol . 1985; 1 (3): 108-11 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Balto H, Al Khalifah Sh, Al Mugairin S, Al Deeb M, et al.: Technical quality of root fillings performed by undergraduate students in Saudi Arabia. Int Endod J . 2010; 43 (4): 292-300 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Matoug-Elwerfelli M, Abdou A, Almutairi W, Alhuthayli M, et al.: Radiographic assessment of endodontic mishaps in an undergraduate student clinic: a 2-year retrospective study. PeerJ . 2022; 10 : e13858 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Al-Omari MA, Al-Hiyasat AS: Radiographic technical quality of root canal treatment performed by dental students at the Dental Teaching Center in Jordan. J Dent . 2004; 32 (4): 301-7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Restorative dentistry and Endodontics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Matoug-Elwerfelli M. Reviewer Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150581.r214866 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v1#referee-response-214866 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Turki Alshehri , College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and ... Continue reading Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: 1. I thank the authors for submitting this manuscript and appreciate the resources, time, and effort invested by the authors in producing this manuscript. However, I highlight several issues that need to be addressed. Additionally, the English language and grammar need to be improved throughout the manuscript. I elaborate on the main issues below: • Title: Suggested change in title; Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The title was adjusted in the manuscript page number 1 according to the reviewer’s suggestion. 2. Keywords: Please ensure keywords are suitable Mesh terms. • Response: Thank you for your raising this comment. Key words were adjusted in the manuscript page number 15. 3. Abstract To be edited take the below comments into consideration 4. Introduction 1. The introduction needs to be improved, with a better structure including the clinical/educational relevance of the study and the gap of knowledge, hence why the study was conducted. The authors are advised to read classical references of dental posts such as; Fernandes A. S., Dessai G. S. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 14, (2001). Trope M., Maltz D. O., Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Dent. Traumatol. 1, 108-111 (1985). • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The introduction section was modified as requested on page numbers 1,2. 2. The authors mention “Accordingly, these rubrics provide a proper assessment of the student’s practice and skills level and also helps in improving their ability to perform self-assessment for each specific dental procedure.” Please elaborate on the rubrics. Consider adding it as a supplementary file. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The rubrics were added in the methods section. They were extracted from previously published articles (5, 9, 11, 15) and verified by the prosthodontics faculty department in the dental college. The rubrics were formulated to be comprehensive including assessment of the quality of radiogragraphs, quality of obturation as well as quality of post and core preparation and placement. These criteria are explained in the methods section on pages 4-7 as well as in Table 1 and Figure 1 • Methods 5. As a general comment, the experimental design needs to be explained in more detail. Please read for further guidance; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01679.x https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.002 • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Methods are explained in detail in page numbers 4-7. I have mentioned a few of the most important points that must be included. 6. Any sample size calculation to determine the power of the study? Please explain. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The sample size was clarified in the methods section page number 3. 7. Please add a statement about patient consent being waived due to the nature of the study. Also please add a statement about anonymous patient information status. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The statements were added in the methods section on page 4. 8. Please correct; dammam To Dammam • Response: The city name was corrected in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 9. Can the authors mention was the post placement placed on primary (non-surgical) root canal treatment or re-treatment cases? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were clarified in the methods section on page 4. 10. How were cases selected for undergraduate students? Please discuss the necessity for preoperative use of the AAE case difficulty assessment form and similar tools, especially in selecting appropriate teeth for inexperienced operators. Which cases were deemed as too difficult for students, and should this strategy be revised, or recommendations made considering the results? • Response: Thank you for your important comment. Guidelines reference was added in the methods section on page 4. 11. Please add, the average staff-to-student ratio during clinical supervision • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The ratio was added in the methods section in the manuscript page number 5. 12. Please provide further details about how the radiographs were taken. Parallel technique? Digital or manually developed? • Response: Thank you for your comment. The technique was added in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 13. Please provide further details about; post placement and to determine if any errors. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The errors are explained in detail in the methods section page number 4-7. 14. Please provide further details about the investigators (These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators). Are they students, specialists, consultants? How many years of training? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Criteria were mentioned in the methods section on page 4. 15. Were the investigators calibrated? This should be added. How was calibration performed? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The calibration method was added in the methods section on page 4. 16. Please clearly state inclusion and exclusion criteria. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The criteria were clarified in the methods section on page number 4. 17. Please clearly mention how root canal treatment and canal obturation were performed. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The procedure was added in the methods section on page number 4. 18. The authors mention (the assessment of the quality of canal preparation (acceptable: outline of the preparation was following the canal contour and unacceptable: canal preparation did not follow the canal outline or ledge resulted during preparation) and the quality of PAs were added to the excel sheet where the followed evaluation criteria of PAs were extracted from a previous study criteria (REF 11). Based on what criteria was the post/core assessed? on what criteria was the quality of canal preparation assessed? Please provide a suitable reference. Also, the reference for the criteria of PAs is unsuitable, please use international guideline criteria • Response: Thank you for your comment. References to the guidelines used to assess post and core treatment quality were added in the methods section pages 4-5. • Results 19. The authors state, “There were no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational years regarding the quality of post-placement according to the criteria mentioned in the method.” These results are generally non-logical, is the quality of dental post/core placement for a 4th year dental student comparable to dental interns? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The quality of treatment was comparable because the treatment procedures were done under faculty supervision from both departments’ endodontics and prosthodontics. This might explain the lack of significant difference in the treatment quality of all dental years included in the study. This justification was mentioned in pages 12 and 13. 20. The findings of the study need to be explained in more detail. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The findings were thoroughly explained in the discussion section on pages 11 and 12. 21. Is the statistical analysis the most appropriate? Please consult a statistician and report the results in detail. • Response: Thank you for your comment. All comments were adjusted in the result section pages 8-10. 22. All tables to be edited, as per the above comment. Please consult a statistician for improvements • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The result section was adjusted as recommended on pages 8-10. • Discussion 23. Please add a suitable reference to the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. References were added to the introduction on page 3. 24. The authors must mention the endodontic pre-clinical and clinical teaching and training that the students have been taught. Additionally, what year do they start endodontic treatment? Post placement? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All details were added in the methods section page number 11. 25. The discussion should consist of comments on the methodologies chosen and a comparison with previous studies. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The discussion was adjusted according to the suggestion. 26. The authors keep referring to standard guidelines, please further elaborate. Which international guidelines are the authors referring to? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines of post and core placement and endodontic case selection were added to the methods (Table 1 and Figure 1) on pages 4-7. 27. Lack of clinical data to further support radiographic assessment to determine success/survival should be added. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The data were added in the methods section and compared with previous similar studies. 28. Please add the strengths of the study. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Strengths are available in the discussion section on page 13. 29. Additionally, limitations can be added, please add • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Limitations are mentioned in the discussion section on page 13. • Conclusion 30. How was the below statement extracted from the results; “Dental students’ fear of perforations of narrow canals or furcation perforations pushed them to treat mainly premolars and incisors and to use narrower posts than the proper diameter. Therefore, students need to have more confidence in their qualities to improve their clinical skills.”?? Please remove if not directly extracted from the study results…. Please re-write the conclusion based on the results of the study. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. • References 31. Errors in references are noted, and to be carefully edited. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All references were adjusted according to journal guidelines in the reference section. Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: 1. I thank the authors for submitting this manuscript and appreciate the resources, time, and effort invested by the authors in producing this manuscript. However, I highlight several issues that need to be addressed. Additionally, the English language and grammar need to be improved throughout the manuscript. I elaborate on the main issues below: • Title: Suggested change in title; Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The title was adjusted in the manuscript page number 1 according to the reviewer’s suggestion. 2. Keywords: Please ensure keywords are suitable Mesh terms. • Response: Thank you for your raising this comment. Key words were adjusted in the manuscript page number 15. 3. Abstract To be edited take the below comments into consideration 4. Introduction 1. The introduction needs to be improved, with a better structure including the clinical/educational relevance of the study and the gap of knowledge, hence why the study was conducted. The authors are advised to read classical references of dental posts such as; Fernandes A. S., Dessai G. S. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 14, (2001). Trope M., Maltz D. O., Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Dent. Traumatol. 1, 108-111 (1985). • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The introduction section was modified as requested on page numbers 1,2. 2. The authors mention “Accordingly, these rubrics provide a proper assessment of the student’s practice and skills level and also helps in improving their ability to perform self-assessment for each specific dental procedure.” Please elaborate on the rubrics. Consider adding it as a supplementary file. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The rubrics were added in the methods section. They were extracted from previously published articles (5, 9, 11, 15) and verified by the prosthodontics faculty department in the dental college. The rubrics were formulated to be comprehensive including assessment of the quality of radiogragraphs, quality of obturation as well as quality of post and core preparation and placement. These criteria are explained in the methods section on pages 4-7 as well as in Table 1 and Figure 1 • Methods 5. As a general comment, the experimental design needs to be explained in more detail. Please read for further guidance; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01679.x https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.002 • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Methods are explained in detail in page numbers 4-7. I have mentioned a few of the most important points that must be included. 6. Any sample size calculation to determine the power of the study? Please explain. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The sample size was clarified in the methods section page number 3. 7. Please add a statement about patient consent being waived due to the nature of the study. Also please add a statement about anonymous patient information status. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The statements were added in the methods section on page 4. 8. Please correct; dammam To Dammam • Response: The city name was corrected in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 9. Can the authors mention was the post placement placed on primary (non-surgical) root canal treatment or re-treatment cases? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were clarified in the methods section on page 4. 10. How were cases selected for undergraduate students? Please discuss the necessity for preoperative use of the AAE case difficulty assessment form and similar tools, especially in selecting appropriate teeth for inexperienced operators. Which cases were deemed as too difficult for students, and should this strategy be revised, or recommendations made considering the results? • Response: Thank you for your important comment. Guidelines reference was added in the methods section on page 4. 11. Please add, the average staff-to-student ratio during clinical supervision • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The ratio was added in the methods section in the manuscript page number 5. 12. Please provide further details about how the radiographs were taken. Parallel technique? Digital or manually developed? • Response: Thank you for your comment. The technique was added in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 13. Please provide further details about; post placement and to determine if any errors. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The errors are explained in detail in the methods section page number 4-7. 14. Please provide further details about the investigators (These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators). Are they students, specialists, consultants? How many years of training? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Criteria were mentioned in the methods section on page 4. 15. Were the investigators calibrated? This should be added. How was calibration performed? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The calibration method was added in the methods section on page 4. 16. Please clearly state inclusion and exclusion criteria. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The criteria were clarified in the methods section on page number 4. 17. Please clearly mention how root canal treatment and canal obturation were performed. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The procedure was added in the methods section on page number 4. 18. The authors mention (the assessment of the quality of canal preparation (acceptable: outline of the preparation was following the canal contour and unacceptable: canal preparation did not follow the canal outline or ledge resulted during preparation) and the quality of PAs were added to the excel sheet where the followed evaluation criteria of PAs were extracted from a previous study criteria (REF 11). Based on what criteria was the post/core assessed? on what criteria was the quality of canal preparation assessed? Please provide a suitable reference. Also, the reference for the criteria of PAs is unsuitable, please use international guideline criteria • Response: Thank you for your comment. References to the guidelines used to assess post and core treatment quality were added in the methods section pages 4-5. • Results 19. The authors state, “There were no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational years regarding the quality of post-placement according to the criteria mentioned in the method.” These results are generally non-logical, is the quality of dental post/core placement for a 4th year dental student comparable to dental interns? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The quality of treatment was comparable because the treatment procedures were done under faculty supervision from both departments’ endodontics and prosthodontics. This might explain the lack of significant difference in the treatment quality of all dental years included in the study. This justification was mentioned in pages 12 and 13. 20. The findings of the study need to be explained in more detail. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The findings were thoroughly explained in the discussion section on pages 11 and 12. 21. Is the statistical analysis the most appropriate? Please consult a statistician and report the results in detail. • Response: Thank you for your comment. All comments were adjusted in the result section pages 8-10. 22. All tables to be edited, as per the above comment. Please consult a statistician for improvements • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The result section was adjusted as recommended on pages 8-10. • Discussion 23. Please add a suitable reference to the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. References were added to the introduction on page 3. 24. The authors must mention the endodontic pre-clinical and clinical teaching and training that the students have been taught. Additionally, what year do they start endodontic treatment? Post placement? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All details were added in the methods section page number 11. 25. The discussion should consist of comments on the methodologies chosen and a comparison with previous studies. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The discussion was adjusted according to the suggestion. 26. The authors keep referring to standard guidelines, please further elaborate. Which international guidelines are the authors referring to? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines of post and core placement and endodontic case selection were added to the methods (Table 1 and Figure 1) on pages 4-7. 27. Lack of clinical data to further support radiographic assessment to determine success/survival should be added. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The data were added in the methods section and compared with previous similar studies. 28. Please add the strengths of the study. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Strengths are available in the discussion section on page 13. 29. Additionally, limitations can be added, please add • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Limitations are mentioned in the discussion section on page 13. • Conclusion 30. How was the below statement extracted from the results; “Dental students’ fear of perforations of narrow canals or furcation perforations pushed them to treat mainly premolars and incisors and to use narrower posts than the proper diameter. Therefore, students need to have more confidence in their qualities to improve their clinical skills.”?? Please remove if not directly extracted from the study results…. Please re-write the conclusion based on the results of the study. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. • References 31. Errors in references are noted, and to be carefully edited. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All references were adjusted according to journal guidelines in the reference section. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest is available Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Turki Alshehri , College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and ... Continue reading Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: 1. I thank the authors for submitting this manuscript and appreciate the resources, time, and effort invested by the authors in producing this manuscript. However, I highlight several issues that need to be addressed. Additionally, the English language and grammar need to be improved throughout the manuscript. I elaborate on the main issues below: • Title: Suggested change in title; Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The title was adjusted in the manuscript page number 1 according to the reviewer’s suggestion. 2. Keywords: Please ensure keywords are suitable Mesh terms. • Response: Thank you for your raising this comment. Key words were adjusted in the manuscript page number 15. 3. Abstract To be edited take the below comments into consideration 4. Introduction 1. The introduction needs to be improved, with a better structure including the clinical/educational relevance of the study and the gap of knowledge, hence why the study was conducted. The authors are advised to read classical references of dental posts such as; Fernandes A. S., Dessai G. S. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 14, (2001). Trope M., Maltz D. O., Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Dent. Traumatol. 1, 108-111 (1985). • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The introduction section was modified as requested on page numbers 1,2. 2. The authors mention “Accordingly, these rubrics provide a proper assessment of the student’s practice and skills level and also helps in improving their ability to perform self-assessment for each specific dental procedure.” Please elaborate on the rubrics. Consider adding it as a supplementary file. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The rubrics were added in the methods section. They were extracted from previously published articles (5, 9, 11, 15) and verified by the prosthodontics faculty department in the dental college. The rubrics were formulated to be comprehensive including assessment of the quality of radiogragraphs, quality of obturation as well as quality of post and core preparation and placement. These criteria are explained in the methods section on pages 4-7 as well as in Table 1 and Figure 1 • Methods 5. As a general comment, the experimental design needs to be explained in more detail. Please read for further guidance; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01679.x https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.002 • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Methods are explained in detail in page numbers 4-7. I have mentioned a few of the most important points that must be included. 6. Any sample size calculation to determine the power of the study? Please explain. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The sample size was clarified in the methods section page number 3. 7. Please add a statement about patient consent being waived due to the nature of the study. Also please add a statement about anonymous patient information status. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The statements were added in the methods section on page 4. 8. Please correct; dammam To Dammam • Response: The city name was corrected in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 9. Can the authors mention was the post placement placed on primary (non-surgical) root canal treatment or re-treatment cases? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were clarified in the methods section on page 4. 10. How were cases selected for undergraduate students? Please discuss the necessity for preoperative use of the AAE case difficulty assessment form and similar tools, especially in selecting appropriate teeth for inexperienced operators. Which cases were deemed as too difficult for students, and should this strategy be revised, or recommendations made considering the results? • Response: Thank you for your important comment. Guidelines reference was added in the methods section on page 4. 11. Please add, the average staff-to-student ratio during clinical supervision • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The ratio was added in the methods section in the manuscript page number 5. 12. Please provide further details about how the radiographs were taken. Parallel technique? Digital or manually developed? • Response: Thank you for your comment. The technique was added in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 13. Please provide further details about; post placement and to determine if any errors. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The errors are explained in detail in the methods section page number 4-7. 14. Please provide further details about the investigators (These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators). Are they students, specialists, consultants? How many years of training? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Criteria were mentioned in the methods section on page 4. 15. Were the investigators calibrated? This should be added. How was calibration performed? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The calibration method was added in the methods section on page 4. 16. Please clearly state inclusion and exclusion criteria. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The criteria were clarified in the methods section on page number 4. 17. Please clearly mention how root canal treatment and canal obturation were performed. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The procedure was added in the methods section on page number 4. 18. The authors mention (the assessment of the quality of canal preparation (acceptable: outline of the preparation was following the canal contour and unacceptable: canal preparation did not follow the canal outline or ledge resulted during preparation) and the quality of PAs were added to the excel sheet where the followed evaluation criteria of PAs were extracted from a previous study criteria (REF 11). Based on what criteria was the post/core assessed? on what criteria was the quality of canal preparation assessed? Please provide a suitable reference. Also, the reference for the criteria of PAs is unsuitable, please use international guideline criteria • Response: Thank you for your comment. References to the guidelines used to assess post and core treatment quality were added in the methods section pages 4-5. • Results 19. The authors state, “There were no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational years regarding the quality of post-placement according to the criteria mentioned in the method.” These results are generally non-logical, is the quality of dental post/core placement for a 4th year dental student comparable to dental interns? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The quality of treatment was comparable because the treatment procedures were done under faculty supervision from both departments’ endodontics and prosthodontics. This might explain the lack of significant difference in the treatment quality of all dental years included in the study. This justification was mentioned in pages 12 and 13. 20. The findings of the study need to be explained in more detail. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The findings were thoroughly explained in the discussion section on pages 11 and 12. 21. Is the statistical analysis the most appropriate? Please consult a statistician and report the results in detail. • Response: Thank you for your comment. All comments were adjusted in the result section pages 8-10. 22. All tables to be edited, as per the above comment. Please consult a statistician for improvements • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The result section was adjusted as recommended on pages 8-10. • Discussion 23. Please add a suitable reference to the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. References were added to the introduction on page 3. 24. The authors must mention the endodontic pre-clinical and clinical teaching and training that the students have been taught. Additionally, what year do they start endodontic treatment? Post placement? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All details were added in the methods section page number 11. 25. The discussion should consist of comments on the methodologies chosen and a comparison with previous studies. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The discussion was adjusted according to the suggestion. 26. The authors keep referring to standard guidelines, please further elaborate. Which international guidelines are the authors referring to? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines of post and core placement and endodontic case selection were added to the methods (Table 1 and Figure 1) on pages 4-7. 27. Lack of clinical data to further support radiographic assessment to determine success/survival should be added. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The data were added in the methods section and compared with previous similar studies. 28. Please add the strengths of the study. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Strengths are available in the discussion section on page 13. 29. Additionally, limitations can be added, please add • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Limitations are mentioned in the discussion section on page 13. • Conclusion 30. How was the below statement extracted from the results; “Dental students’ fear of perforations of narrow canals or furcation perforations pushed them to treat mainly premolars and incisors and to use narrower posts than the proper diameter. Therefore, students need to have more confidence in their qualities to improve their clinical skills.”?? Please remove if not directly extracted from the study results…. Please re-write the conclusion based on the results of the study. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. • References 31. Errors in references are noted, and to be carefully edited. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All references were adjusted according to journal guidelines in the reference section. Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: 1. I thank the authors for submitting this manuscript and appreciate the resources, time, and effort invested by the authors in producing this manuscript. However, I highlight several issues that need to be addressed. Additionally, the English language and grammar need to be improved throughout the manuscript. I elaborate on the main issues below: • Title: Suggested change in title; Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The title was adjusted in the manuscript page number 1 according to the reviewer’s suggestion. 2. Keywords: Please ensure keywords are suitable Mesh terms. • Response: Thank you for your raising this comment. Key words were adjusted in the manuscript page number 15. 3. Abstract To be edited take the below comments into consideration 4. Introduction 1. The introduction needs to be improved, with a better structure including the clinical/educational relevance of the study and the gap of knowledge, hence why the study was conducted. The authors are advised to read classical references of dental posts such as; Fernandes A. S., Dessai G. S. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 14, (2001). Trope M., Maltz D. O., Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Dent. Traumatol. 1, 108-111 (1985). • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The introduction section was modified as requested on page numbers 1,2. 2. The authors mention “Accordingly, these rubrics provide a proper assessment of the student’s practice and skills level and also helps in improving their ability to perform self-assessment for each specific dental procedure.” Please elaborate on the rubrics. Consider adding it as a supplementary file. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The rubrics were added in the methods section. They were extracted from previously published articles (5, 9, 11, 15) and verified by the prosthodontics faculty department in the dental college. The rubrics were formulated to be comprehensive including assessment of the quality of radiogragraphs, quality of obturation as well as quality of post and core preparation and placement. These criteria are explained in the methods section on pages 4-7 as well as in Table 1 and Figure 1 • Methods 5. As a general comment, the experimental design needs to be explained in more detail. Please read for further guidance; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01679.x https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.002 • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Methods are explained in detail in page numbers 4-7. I have mentioned a few of the most important points that must be included. 6. Any sample size calculation to determine the power of the study? Please explain. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The sample size was clarified in the methods section page number 3. 7. Please add a statement about patient consent being waived due to the nature of the study. Also please add a statement about anonymous patient information status. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The statements were added in the methods section on page 4. 8. Please correct; dammam To Dammam • Response: The city name was corrected in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 9. Can the authors mention was the post placement placed on primary (non-surgical) root canal treatment or re-treatment cases? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were clarified in the methods section on page 4. 10. How were cases selected for undergraduate students? Please discuss the necessity for preoperative use of the AAE case difficulty assessment form and similar tools, especially in selecting appropriate teeth for inexperienced operators. Which cases were deemed as too difficult for students, and should this strategy be revised, or recommendations made considering the results? • Response: Thank you for your important comment. Guidelines reference was added in the methods section on page 4. 11. Please add, the average staff-to-student ratio during clinical supervision • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The ratio was added in the methods section in the manuscript page number 5. 12. Please provide further details about how the radiographs were taken. Parallel technique? Digital or manually developed? • Response: Thank you for your comment. The technique was added in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 13. Please provide further details about; post placement and to determine if any errors. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The errors are explained in detail in the methods section page number 4-7. 14. Please provide further details about the investigators (These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators). Are they students, specialists, consultants? How many years of training? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Criteria were mentioned in the methods section on page 4. 15. Were the investigators calibrated? This should be added. How was calibration performed? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The calibration method was added in the methods section on page 4. 16. Please clearly state inclusion and exclusion criteria. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The criteria were clarified in the methods section on page number 4. 17. Please clearly mention how root canal treatment and canal obturation were performed. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The procedure was added in the methods section on page number 4. 18. The authors mention (the assessment of the quality of canal preparation (acceptable: outline of the preparation was following the canal contour and unacceptable: canal preparation did not follow the canal outline or ledge resulted during preparation) and the quality of PAs were added to the excel sheet where the followed evaluation criteria of PAs were extracted from a previous study criteria (REF 11). Based on what criteria was the post/core assessed? on what criteria was the quality of canal preparation assessed? Please provide a suitable reference. Also, the reference for the criteria of PAs is unsuitable, please use international guideline criteria • Response: Thank you for your comment. References to the guidelines used to assess post and core treatment quality were added in the methods section pages 4-5. • Results 19. The authors state, “There were no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational years regarding the quality of post-placement according to the criteria mentioned in the method.” These results are generally non-logical, is the quality of dental post/core placement for a 4th year dental student comparable to dental interns? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The quality of treatment was comparable because the treatment procedures were done under faculty supervision from both departments’ endodontics and prosthodontics. This might explain the lack of significant difference in the treatment quality of all dental years included in the study. This justification was mentioned in pages 12 and 13. 20. The findings of the study need to be explained in more detail. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The findings were thoroughly explained in the discussion section on pages 11 and 12. 21. Is the statistical analysis the most appropriate? Please consult a statistician and report the results in detail. • Response: Thank you for your comment. All comments were adjusted in the result section pages 8-10. 22. All tables to be edited, as per the above comment. Please consult a statistician for improvements • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The result section was adjusted as recommended on pages 8-10. • Discussion 23. Please add a suitable reference to the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. References were added to the introduction on page 3. 24. The authors must mention the endodontic pre-clinical and clinical teaching and training that the students have been taught. Additionally, what year do they start endodontic treatment? Post placement? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All details were added in the methods section page number 11. 25. The discussion should consist of comments on the methodologies chosen and a comparison with previous studies. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The discussion was adjusted according to the suggestion. 26. The authors keep referring to standard guidelines, please further elaborate. Which international guidelines are the authors referring to? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines of post and core placement and endodontic case selection were added to the methods (Table 1 and Figure 1) on pages 4-7. 27. Lack of clinical data to further support radiographic assessment to determine success/survival should be added. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The data were added in the methods section and compared with previous similar studies. 28. Please add the strengths of the study. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Strengths are available in the discussion section on page 13. 29. Additionally, limitations can be added, please add • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Limitations are mentioned in the discussion section on page 13. • Conclusion 30. How was the below statement extracted from the results; “Dental students’ fear of perforations of narrow canals or furcation perforations pushed them to treat mainly premolars and incisors and to use narrower posts than the proper diameter. Therefore, students need to have more confidence in their qualities to improve their clinical skills.”?? Please remove if not directly extracted from the study results…. Please re-write the conclusion based on the results of the study. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. • References 31. Errors in references are noted, and to be carefully edited. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All references were adjusted according to journal guidelines in the reference section. Competing Interests: No conflict of interest is available Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Aug 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 28 Mar 24 read read Version 1 14 Aug 23 read read Manal Matoug-Elwerfelli , Qatar University, Doha, Qatar Yuanita Lely Rachmawati , Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia Rania Moussa , Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Moussa R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 31 May 2024 | for Version 2 Rania Moussa , Department of Substitutive Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Moussa R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The article retrospectively studies the quality of endodontic treatment followed by post- and core treatment of patients attending a teaching institute and treated by students at different educational levels. The aim of the study is clear and scientifically relevant to the increased number of emerging dental colleges, where internal auditing and self-evaluation are essential to improving students' competence and preparing them for unsupervised real life. the methodology is well-written and detailed The only comment that is missing in the methodology is that the grouping of the sample is not mentioned while reported in the results. Please add the group details to the methodology The results are well-documented and detailed. Discussion addressed the results very well and referred to relevant literature Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise A prosthodontist and faculty member I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Moussa R. Peer Review Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163330.r282296) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2#referee-response-282296 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Rachmawati Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Apr 2024 | for Version 2 Yuanita Lely Rachmawati , Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, East Java, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Rachmawati Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have revised the manuscript as suggested. No further comments from me. Thank you. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Oral health literacy and OoL I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Rachmawati YL. Peer Review Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163330.r260338) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2#referee-response-260338 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Rachmawati Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 21 Dec 2023 | for Version 1 Yuanita Lely Rachmawati , Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, East Java, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2023 Rachmawati Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Comments: I appreciate the hard work that all authors have put into this research. However, some details need to be added Keywords Please check the selected words in the MeSH Methods Please explain in more detail about sample size calculation. What Intraoral X-ray imaging unit was used and how the PA technique was taken “These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators”. Please add information related to the investigator: who are they, how they got the training, and how to measure the agreement between them. Figure 1 looks blurry, the writing needs to be clarified. Results At Methods section mentions “A total of 550 periapical radiographs” but in the Result section “The study included 502 students”. Please explain whether the analysis unit was PA or student, and the reasons why there are differences in numbers. One-way ANOVA was used in this study. One-way ANOVA is a statistical test that is used to measure differences in average data on numerical scale variables. The authors can add a table that informs the mean and SD values of the variables. Discussion It is necessary to add references in the first paragraph. Please add the reference of the standard guidelines of post and core placement and cementation among variable teeth Conclusion The content of the conclusion is focused on the research objectives and results Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Turki Alshehri , College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: I appreciate the hard work that all authors have put into this research. However, some details need to be added. • Keywords 1. Please check the selected words in the MeSH • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Keywords were adjusted in the manuscript on page 15. • Methods 1. Please explain in more detail about sample size calculation. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The modifications were done in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 2. What Intraoral X-ray imaging unit was used and how the PA technique was taken? • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. The modification was done in the methods section of the manuscript on pages 4-5. 3. “These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators”. Please add information related to the investigator: who are they, how they got the training, and how to measure the agreement between them. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The assessment method was clarified in the methods section of the manuscript on page 4. 4. Figure 1 looks blurry; the writing needs to be clarified. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Figure resolution was adjusted in the methods section on page 6. • Results 1. At Methods section mentions “A total of 550 periapical radiographs” but in the Result section “The study included 502 students”. Please explain whether the analysis unit was PA or student, and the reasons why there are differences in numbers. • Response: Thank you for your raising this important point. This difference in the total number mentioned in the results was due to the missing data of 48 cases, and this statement was added in the results section on page 8. 2. One-way ANOVA was used in this study. One-way ANOVA is a statistical test that is used to measure differences in average data on numerical scale variables. The authors can add a table that informs the mean and SD values of the variables. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Table 1 includes the requested information on page 8. • Discussion 1. It is necessary to add references in the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. References were added to the introduction and rearranged in the reference section page number 14 and 15. 2. Please add the reference of the standard guidelines of post and core placement and cementation among variable teeth • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines used were added in Table 1 and the reference of previous studies (5, 9, 11, 15) where the guidelines were extracted and added in the methods section pages 5-7. • Conclusion 1. The content of the conclusion is focused on the research objectives and results. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. View more View less Competing Interests No conflict of interest avaialbe reply Respond Report a concern Rachmawati YL. Peer Review Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150581.r224915) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v1#referee-response-224915 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Matoug-Elwerfelli M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Oct 2023 | for Version 1 Manal Matoug-Elwerfelli , College of Dental Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Doha, Qatar 0 Views copyright © 2023 Matoug-Elwerfelli M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Comments: I thank the authors for submitting this manuscript and appreciates the resources, time and effort invested by the authors in producing this manuscript. However, I highlight several issues that needs to be addressed. Additionally, the English language and grammar needs to be improved throughout the manuscript. I elaborate on the main issues below: Title Suggested change in title; Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4?-year retrospective study Keywords Please ensure keywords are suitable Mesh terms Abstract To be edited taken the below comments into consideration Introduction The introduction needs to be improved, with a better structure including clinical/educational relevance of study and gap of knowledge, hence why the study was conducted. The authors are advised to read classical references of dental posts such as; Fernandes A. S., Dessai G. S. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 14, (2001). Trope M., Maltz D. O., Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Dent. Traumatol. 1, 108-111 (1985). The authors mention “Accordingly, these rubrics provide proper assessment of the students’ practice and skills level, and also helps in improving their ability to perform self-assessment for each specific dental procedure.” Please elaborate on the rubrics? Consider adding as a supplementary file. Methods As a general comment, The experimental design needs to be explained in more detail. Please read for further guidance; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01679.x https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.002 I have mentioned a few of the most important points that must be included; Any sample size calculation to determine power of the study? Please explain Please add a statement about patient consent was waived due to nature of study. Also please add statement about anonymous patient information status. Please correct; dammam To Dammam Can the authors mention was the post placement placed on primary (non-surgical) root canal treatment or re-treatment cases? How were cases selected for undergraduate students? Please discuss the necessity for preoperative use of the AAE case difficulty assessment form and similar tools, especially in selecting appropriate teeth for inexperienced operators. Which cases were deemed as too difficult for students, and should this strategy be revised, or recommendations made considering the results? Please add; average staff to student ratio during clinical supervision Please provide further details about how the radiographs were taken? Parallel technique? Digital or manually developed? Please provide further details about; post placement and to determine if any errors. Please provide further details about the investigators (These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators). Are they students, specialists, consultants? How many years of training? Were the investigators calibrated? This should be added..How was calibration performed? Please clearly state inclusion and exclusion criteria. Please clearly mention how root canal treatment and canal obturation was performed? The authors mention (the assessment of the quality of canal preparation (acceptable: outline of the preparation was following the canal contour and unacceptable: canal preparation did not follow the canal outline or ledge resulted during preparation) and the quality of PAs were added to the excel sheet where the followed evaluation criteria of PAs were extracted from a previous study criteria (REF 11). Based on what criteria was the post/core assessed? on what criteria was the quality of canal preparation assessed? Please provide a suitable reference. Also the reference for the criteria of PAs is unsuitable, please use international guideline criteria Results The authors state, “There were no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational years regarding the quality of post placement according to the criteria mentioned in the method.” These results are generally non-logical, is the quality of dental post/core placement for a 4 th year dental student comparable to dental interns. Findings of the study need to be explained in more detail. Is the statistical analysis the most appropriate? Please consult a statistician and report the results in details All table to be edited, as per above comment. Please consult a statistician for improvements Discussion Please add suitable reference to the first paragraph. The authors must mention the endodontic pre-clinical and clinical teaching and training that the students have been taught? Additionally, what year do they start endodontic treatment? Post placement? The discussion should consist of comments on the methodologies chosen and comparison with previous studies. The authors keep referring to standard guidelines, please further elaborate. Which international guidelines are the authors referring too? Lack of clinical data to further support radiographic assessment to determine success/survival should be added Please add strengths of study? Additionally limitations can be added, please add Conclusion How was the below statement extracted from the results; “Dental students’ fear of perforations of narrow canals or furcation perforations pushed them to treat mainly premolars and incisors and to use narrower posts than the proper diameter. Therefore, students need to have more confidence in their qualities to improve their clinical skills.” ?? Please remove if not directly extracted from the study results…. Please re-write the conclusion based on the results of the study References Errors in references are noted, To be carefully edited Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No References 1. Fernandes AS, Dessai GS: Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont . 2001; 14 (4): 355-63 PubMed Abstract 2. Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L: Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol . 1985; 1 (3): 108-11 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Balto H, Al Khalifah Sh, Al Mugairin S, Al Deeb M, et al.: Technical quality of root fillings performed by undergraduate students in Saudi Arabia. Int Endod J . 2010; 43 (4): 292-300 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Matoug-Elwerfelli M, Abdou A, Almutairi W, Alhuthayli M, et al.: Radiographic assessment of endodontic mishaps in an undergraduate student clinic: a 2-year retrospective study. PeerJ . 2022; 10 : e13858 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Al-Omari MA, Al-Hiyasat AS: Radiographic technical quality of root canal treatment performed by dental students at the Dental Teaching Center in Jordan. J Dent . 2004; 32 (4): 301-7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Restorative dentistry and Endodontics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Apr 2024 Turki Alshehri , College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Dear Editor and Reviewers, We would like to thank you for inviting us to resubmit our revised manuscript. We wanted to express our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback and insights have been instrumental in refining the quality and impact of our work. We have carefully incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, and we are confident that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall content and presentation. Your thorough review has contributed to elevating the manuscript's potential to make a meaningful contribution to the prosthodontics community. In response to your invaluable comments, we have diligently revised the manuscript to address your concerns. Below, we have summarized the main points you raised and provided our responses, highlighted in yellow. Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing support. Sincerely Authors Comments: 1. I thank the authors for submitting this manuscript and appreciate the resources, time, and effort invested by the authors in producing this manuscript. However, I highlight several issues that need to be addressed. Additionally, the English language and grammar need to be improved throughout the manuscript. I elaborate on the main issues below: • Title: Suggested change in title; Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The title was adjusted in the manuscript page number 1 according to the reviewer’s suggestion. 2. Keywords: Please ensure keywords are suitable Mesh terms. • Response: Thank you for your raising this comment. Key words were adjusted in the manuscript page number 15. 3. Abstract To be edited take the below comments into consideration 4. Introduction 1. The introduction needs to be improved, with a better structure including the clinical/educational relevance of the study and the gap of knowledge, hence why the study was conducted. The authors are advised to read classical references of dental posts such as; Fernandes A. S., Dessai G. S. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 14, (2001). Trope M., Maltz D. O., Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Dent. Traumatol. 1, 108-111 (1985). • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The introduction section was modified as requested on page numbers 1,2. 2. The authors mention “Accordingly, these rubrics provide a proper assessment of the student’s practice and skills level and also helps in improving their ability to perform self-assessment for each specific dental procedure.” Please elaborate on the rubrics. Consider adding it as a supplementary file. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The rubrics were added in the methods section. They were extracted from previously published articles (5, 9, 11, 15) and verified by the prosthodontics faculty department in the dental college. The rubrics were formulated to be comprehensive including assessment of the quality of radiogragraphs, quality of obturation as well as quality of post and core preparation and placement. These criteria are explained in the methods section on pages 4-7 as well as in Table 1 and Figure 1 • Methods 5. As a general comment, the experimental design needs to be explained in more detail. Please read for further guidance; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01679.x https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13858 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.002 • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Methods are explained in detail in page numbers 4-7. I have mentioned a few of the most important points that must be included. 6. Any sample size calculation to determine the power of the study? Please explain. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. The sample size was clarified in the methods section page number 3. 7. Please add a statement about patient consent being waived due to the nature of the study. Also please add a statement about anonymous patient information status. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The statements were added in the methods section on page 4. 8. Please correct; dammam To Dammam • Response: The city name was corrected in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 9. Can the authors mention was the post placement placed on primary (non-surgical) root canal treatment or re-treatment cases? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were clarified in the methods section on page 4. 10. How were cases selected for undergraduate students? Please discuss the necessity for preoperative use of the AAE case difficulty assessment form and similar tools, especially in selecting appropriate teeth for inexperienced operators. Which cases were deemed as too difficult for students, and should this strategy be revised, or recommendations made considering the results? • Response: Thank you for your important comment. Guidelines reference was added in the methods section on page 4. 11. Please add, the average staff-to-student ratio during clinical supervision • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The ratio was added in the methods section in the manuscript page number 5. 12. Please provide further details about how the radiographs were taken. Parallel technique? Digital or manually developed? • Response: Thank you for your comment. The technique was added in the methods section of the manuscript on page 3. 13. Please provide further details about; post placement and to determine if any errors. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The errors are explained in detail in the methods section page number 4-7. 14. Please provide further details about the investigators (These PAs were assessed according to the following criteria by four trained investigators). Are they students, specialists, consultants? How many years of training? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Criteria were mentioned in the methods section on page 4. 15. Were the investigators calibrated? This should be added. How was calibration performed? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The calibration method was added in the methods section on page 4. 16. Please clearly state inclusion and exclusion criteria. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The criteria were clarified in the methods section on page number 4. 17. Please clearly mention how root canal treatment and canal obturation were performed. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The procedure was added in the methods section on page number 4. 18. The authors mention (the assessment of the quality of canal preparation (acceptable: outline of the preparation was following the canal contour and unacceptable: canal preparation did not follow the canal outline or ledge resulted during preparation) and the quality of PAs were added to the excel sheet where the followed evaluation criteria of PAs were extracted from a previous study criteria (REF 11). Based on what criteria was the post/core assessed? on what criteria was the quality of canal preparation assessed? Please provide a suitable reference. Also, the reference for the criteria of PAs is unsuitable, please use international guideline criteria • Response: Thank you for your comment. References to the guidelines used to assess post and core treatment quality were added in the methods section pages 4-5. • Results 19. The authors state, “There were no statistically significant differences between dental students at different clinical educational years regarding the quality of post-placement according to the criteria mentioned in the method.” These results are generally non-logical, is the quality of dental post/core placement for a 4th year dental student comparable to dental interns? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The quality of treatment was comparable because the treatment procedures were done under faculty supervision from both departments’ endodontics and prosthodontics. This might explain the lack of significant difference in the treatment quality of all dental years included in the study. This justification was mentioned in pages 12 and 13. 20. The findings of the study need to be explained in more detail. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The findings were thoroughly explained in the discussion section on pages 11 and 12. 21. Is the statistical analysis the most appropriate? Please consult a statistician and report the results in detail. • Response: Thank you for your comment. All comments were adjusted in the result section pages 8-10. 22. All tables to be edited, as per the above comment. Please consult a statistician for improvements • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The result section was adjusted as recommended on pages 8-10. • Discussion 23. Please add a suitable reference to the first paragraph. • Response: Thank you for your important comment. References were added to the introduction on page 3. 24. The authors must mention the endodontic pre-clinical and clinical teaching and training that the students have been taught. Additionally, what year do they start endodontic treatment? Post placement? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All details were added in the methods section page number 11. 25. The discussion should consist of comments on the methodologies chosen and a comparison with previous studies. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The discussion was adjusted according to the suggestion. 26. The authors keep referring to standard guidelines, please further elaborate. Which international guidelines are the authors referring to? • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The guidelines of post and core placement and endodontic case selection were added to the methods (Table 1 and Figure 1) on pages 4-7. 27. Lack of clinical data to further support radiographic assessment to determine success/survival should be added. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The data were added in the methods section and compared with previous similar studies. 28. Please add the strengths of the study. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Strengths are available in the discussion section on page 13. 29. Additionally, limitations can be added, please add • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Limitations are mentioned in the discussion section on page 13. • Conclusion 30. How was the below statement extracted from the results; “Dental students’ fear of perforations of narrow canals or furcation perforations pushed them to treat mainly premolars and incisors and to use narrower posts than the proper diameter. Therefore, students need to have more confidence in their qualities to improve their clinical skills.”?? Please remove if not directly extracted from the study results…. Please re-write the conclusion based on the results of the study. • Response: Thank you for your comment. The conclusion was adjusted on page 13. • References 31. Errors in references are noted, and to be carefully edited. • Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. All references were adjusted according to journal guidelines in the reference section. View more View less Competing Interests No conflict of interest is available reply Respond Report a concern Matoug-Elwerfelli M. Peer Review Report For: Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at different educational levels in an undergraduate student clinic: a 4-year retrospective study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :976 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.150581.r214866) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v1#referee-response-214866 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Radiographic assessment of dental post and...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Alshehri T et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976", templates : { twitter : "Radiographic assessment of dental post and core placement at.... Alshehri T et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/12-976/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/137421/163330") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "163330"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "201351": 0, "201349": 0, "201355": 0, "201354": 0, "201352": 0, "201359": 0, "224911": 0, "224910": 0, "201357": 0, "224908": 0, "224915": 14, "201362": 0, "224913": 0, "201360": 0, "224919": 0, "224918": 0, "224917": 0, "201364": 0, "224916": 0, "262814": 0, "262815": 0, "262816": 0, "262817": 0, "282287": 0, "282292": 0, "282293": 0, "282294": 0, "282295": 0, "282288": 0, "282289": 0, "282290": 0, "282291": 0, "282296": 8, "214849": 0, "214855": 0, "214852": 0, "197067": 0, "214858": 0, "197066": 0, "214862": 0, "214861": 0, "197068": 0, "214866": 25, "214864": 0, "214871": 0, "214870": 0, "214868": 0, "210409": 0, "268399": 0, "210415": 0, "210413": 0, "210412": 0, "260339": 0, "210419": 0, "260338": 6, "210418": 0, "210417": 0, "210416": 0, "268400": 0, "210422": 0, "210421": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "658a4ba9-bd34-4f83-818b-7ccaa95c12b4"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });