Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 May 7;19(5):e0302810. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302810

An improved diagnostic method for taurodontism and a comparative study on its effectiveness evaluation

Yunmeng Da 1,*, Le Zhang 2, Zhihong Chai 1, Hongfang Du 1, Lele Hao 1, Li Zhang 1, Zhiyin Zhang 1, Yongfan Shen 1,*
Editor: Ranjdar Mahmood Talabani3
PMCID: PMC11075821  PMID: 38713685

Abstract

Objective

The two commonly used diagnostic methods for taurodontism are susceptible to aging changes, mastication wear and other factors. Therefore, this study proposed an improved diagnostic method for taurodontism, and compared it with the previous two methods as a supplement for taurodontism diagnosis.

Methods

The included patients were aged 10–89 years and admitted to the Department of Stomatology of Hebei Eye Hospital from June 1, 2022 to May 31, 2023. Eighty cone-beam computed tomography images were divided equally into 4 groups: 10–29, 30–49, 50–69, and 70–89 years old. The right mandibular first molars were selected as measurement objects. Firstly, |BD| and taurodontism index (TI)-related parameters were measured using Shifman and Chanannel’s method and crown-body(CB) and root (R) lengths was measured by Seow and Lai’s method. The improved method used the length from the cementoenamel junction(CEJ) to the root bifurcation point(body, B)and the root length(root, R)as the measurement objects. Finally, TI, CB/R ratios, and B/R ratios were calculated according to the formulas given below. One-way ANOVA analysis was mainly used to compare the differences in the values, indices and ratios of taurodontism among different age groups (p<0.05).

Results

With the increase of age, |BD| and TI values decreased significantly (p<0.01). The CB/R ratios of 70–89 years group were significantly lower than those of the other three groups (p<0.01). Ratios derived from the improved method were significantly lower in the 70–89 years than in 10–29 years group (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The |BD| and TI parameters proposed by Shifman and channel are significantly influenced by age. The measurements of Seow and Lai (CB/R ratios) were less affected by age compared with those of the former. The improved method(B/R ratios) was least affected by age, which would reduce error and bias in the measurement of taurodontism and obtain more objective results in older patients.

Introduction

In 1913, Keith proposed the concept of "taurodont," characterized by a shortened tooth root and an enlarged pulp chamber, which is common in ungulates (such as cows) [1], then it was classified into hypotaurodontism, mesotaurodontism, hypertaurodontism by Shaw et al. [2]. In 1978, taurodontism was diagnosed by measuring the |BD| values (the vertical distance from the CEJ to the highest point at the bottom of the pulp chamber) and taurodontism index (TI) on oral radiograph [3]. Approximately a decade later, Seow and Lai used the crown-body/root (CB/R) ratio as an indicator of taurodontism [4]. These two methods have been used in most studies [5–8].

In previous studies, the prevalence of taurodontism varied greatly among races and countries. The lowest incidence of taurodontism is 0.1% in western Saudi Arabia population [9], whereas the highest is 52.4% in the Chinese population [6]. Previous research by our group found that the improper selection of diagnostic methods for taurodontism was the main reason for the high and low incidence of taurodontism in different countries or populations. The two commonly used measurement methods of taurodontism was affected by aging changes, mastication wear, and other factors, leading to biases in the measurement results. In this study, to provide a more accurate measurement method and standard for the diagnosis of taurodontism, which is less affected by age, we improved the CB/R ratio method and used the CEJ point to replace the lowest point of the dental crown, and compared it with the previous two to evaluate its effectiveness.

Materials and methods

1. Subjects

This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Hebei Eye Hospital in China (Nos.: 2019KY002 and 2022KY14). The consent was not obtained, because only the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were collected, and the data were analyzed anonymously. Only the authors could access information that identified individual participants during or after data collection. The patients were admitted to the Department of Stomatology of Hebei Eye Hospital from June 1, 2022 to May 31, 2023. Then, the data were accessed for research purposes, starting on June 1, 2023, which took approximately 2 weeks to complete. The inclusion criteria were mandibular first molars with fully developed roots, and no obvious caries or tooth defects affecting the measurement. We collected 80 CBCT images from patients randomly aged between 10 and 89 years and divided them evenly into 4 groups (20 images per group): 10–29 years, 30–49 years, 50–69 years, and 70–89 years, with 20 images in each group. The right mandibular first molar was selected as the measurement object.

2. Diagnosis criteria

First, 80 teeth were measured using the method proposed by Shifman and Chanannel to obtain |BD| and TI values. Method: |BD| was the vertical distance from the CEJ to the highest point on the pulp chamber floor [3]. TI = |AB|/|AC|×100, whereas |AB| was the vertical distance from the lowest point of the pulp chamber ceiling to the highest point of the plasma chamber floor and |AC| was the vertical distance from the lowest point of the ceiling to the longest root tip (Fig 1).

Fig 1. The measurements of Shifman and Chanannel: |BD| is the vertical distance from the CEJ to the highest point at the bottom of the pulp chamber.

Fig 1

|AB| is the vertical distance between the lowest point at the top of the pulp chamber and the highest point at the bottom of the pulp chamber; |AC| is the perpendicular distance between the lowest point at the top of the pulp chamber and the apex of the longest root. CEJ, cementoenamel junction.

Subsequently, the 80 teeth were measured again using the method described by Seow and Lai. CB refers to the vertical distance from the lowest point of the occlusion surface to the root bifurcation, and R refers to the vertical distance from the root bifurcation to the longest root tip. The CB and R values related to the CB/R ratio were obtained, and CB was divided by R to get CB/R ratios. (Fig 2) [4].

Fig 2. The measurements of CB/R ratio and B/R ratio: Crown (C) is the vertical distance from the lowest point of occlusion surface to the CEJ.

Fig 2

Body (B) is the vertical distance from the CEJ to the Root bifurcation point. and Root (R) is the vertical distance from the root bifurcation point to the longest root tip. CEJ, cementoenamel junction.

Eighty teeth were evaluated using the improved method. B refers to the vertical distance from the CEJ to the root bifurcation, and R refers to the vertical distance from the root bifurcation to the longest root tip. Similar to the CB/R ratio, B and R values were related to B/R ratio, and B was divided by R to obtain B/R ratios (Fig 2).

3. Analysis and statistics

Firstly, the values of |BD|, |AB|, |AC|, CB, B and R were measured by CBCT using Image Pro plus 6.0 software. The index was calculated using the following formula. SPSS16.0 software analysis data, with P<0.05 considered statistically significant. The homogeneity test of variance showed that the levels of variance in the TI were heterogeneous using Levene;s test(P<0.05), and the Kruskal-Wallis H test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze these data. Other data conformed to a normal distribution(P>0.05), and statistical analyses were performed by one-way ANOVA and LSD test.

Results

With increasing age, |BD| values decreased significantly (p<0.01) (Fig 3). The TI also decreased significantly with age (p< 0.01) (Fig 4). In the first three age groups, the CB/R ratios tended to decrease but were not significantly different (p> 0.05), until the 70–89 age group showed a significant decline compared to the other groups(p< 0.01) (Fig 5). The B/R ratio also showed a downward trend, but only the 70–89 years group showed a significant decline compared with the 10–29 group(p< 0.05) (Fig 6). The data are presented in Table 1.

Fig 3. The variation trend of |BD| value with age: With the increase of age, the |BD| values decreased significantly (p<0.01).

Fig 3

* p<0.01 vs other groups. ●p<0.01 vs other groups except 50–69 years group(p>0.05). ■ p<0.01 vs other groups except 30–49 years group(p>0.05). ★ p<0.01 vs other groups.

Fig 4. Trend of TI values with age: The TI values decreased significantly with the increase of age, * p<0.01 vs other groups.

Fig 4

■ p<0.01 vs other groups except 70–89 years groups(p>0.05). ★ p<0.01 vs other groups except 50–69 years groups(p>0.05).

Fig 5. Trend of CB/R ratios with years: There were no significant differences in CB/R value between the first three groups(p>0.05).

Fig 5

The 70–89 years group showed significant decrease vs the other groups significantly. * p<0.01 vs the other groups.

Fig 6. Trend of B/R ratios with years: There were no significant differences in CB/R values between the first three groups(p>0.05).

Fig 6

The 70–89 years group showed significant decrease vs. the 10–29 years groups. * p<0.01 vs. the other groups.

Table 1. The |BD|, TI, CB/R and B/R values of the mandibular first molar were (X ± s).

methods 10–29 years 30–49 years 50–69 years 70–89 years
|BD| 1.54±0.43 0.98±0.38 0.81±0.31 0.45±0.23
TI 11.93±2.69 7.29±3.56 4.27±2.37 3.10±1.24
CB/R 0.92±0.11 0.88±0.09 0.87±0.09 0.75±0.08
B/R 0.47±0.07 0.436±0.076 0.437±0.090 0.41±0.07

Classification of the improved method

Since the modified method was an improvement on the basis of CB/R ratio, we still used the grade conversion method of CB/R ratio, normal (CB/R≤1.10), hypotaurodontism (1.10<CB/R≤1.30), mesotaurodontism (1.30<CB/R≤2.0), and hypertaurodontism (2.0<CB/R) [4]. It was estimated that the CB/R ratio was estimated to be approximately twice that of B/R, which we conclude had the following values: normal (B/R≤0.55), hypotaurodontism (0.55<B/R≤0.65), mesotaurodontism (0.65<B/R≤1.0), and hypertaurodontism (1.0 < B/R).

Discussion

Through the analysis of the research results, it was found that the values of |BD| and TI using Shifman and Chanannel’s were significantly affected by age and showed a sharp downward trend which would undoubtedly lead to bias in the measurement of taurodontism, and false- negative results would occur in the measurement of older patients. The results were easy to explain, with increasing age, the top point of the pulp chamber was down growth, and the bottom point was up growth, resulting in a reduction in the overall height of the pulp cavity [10–12]. |BD| was the distance from the CEJ to the pulp chamber floor. Although the CEJ position did not change, an,increase in the pulp chamber floor lead to the decrease of |BD|. The TI was related to the height of the top and bottom of the pulp chamber; therefore, it was had been significantly reduced with aging. Many studies on the incidence of taurodontism have adopted the Shifman and chanannel method, some of which selected adolescents as research objects and obtained relatively accurate results [5, 13], while others targeted at different age groups, including middle-aged and elderly people [7, 14]. It was obviously inappropriate to adopt this method, which would lead to an underestimation of the incidence. Obviously, taurodontism does not disappear with age.

The measurements of Seow and Lai (CB/R ratio) were less affected by age than those of the Shifman and Chanannel method. This was primarily because the lowest point of the occlusion surface was selected using this method. Although the occlusion surface also decreases with chewing wear, the process would takes decades to reach its lowest point. After 70 years of age, the CB/R ratio decreased significantly because the enamel of the occlusion surface was worn out, softer dentin was exposed, and the wear rate accelerated. However, it was not ruled out that some patients with acidosis or gastroesophageal reflux disease would experience severe wear in advance due to the acid erosion of dental minerals, resulting in low measurement values also.

The improved method proposed in this study uses the CEJ points as markers. On the one hand, the CEJ point was not affected by age-related changes after formation; on the other hand, CEJ points are generally located below the gums, and factors such as wear and acidosis rarely affect them, therefore the diagnosis of taurodontism based on this was more accurate and objective. We observed that compared with the first two methods, the improved method was the least affected by age. Only the age group 70–89 and 10–29 years old showed a significant decline. Similar to the results of Pach et al., the incidence of human taurodontism varied at different periods [15]. We believe that this might be related to the different dietary habits and food types of the two generations. The growth and development period of the elderly was the transition between the old and new societies in China, when food was mainly coarse grains and the mastication force was strong. The stimulation of tooth root development was longer and the root bifurcation was larger, leading to a reduction in the B/R ratios. The growth and development period of 10–29 years old was in the modern era with abundant fine soft food, the mastication force was weaker than that of the 70–89 years group, shorter tooth root development, and the ratio correspondingly enhanced. A study found that the cementum in the apical area increased with age, and the root length increased slightly when the tooth was older [16], which may also be a reason for the decline in the index of the 70–89 years group.

Current studies on taurodontism has mainly focused on its association with systemic diseases and related pathogenic genes. Related systemic diseases such as tricho-dento-osseous (TDO) syndrome has also been reported [17–20]. Related pathogenic genes include: NFI-C/CTF, EDA, RUNX2,WNT10A, WNT10B, GREM2, etc. [21–26]. There have been no discussions on the measurement of taurodontism. Two statistical studies on the incidence of taurodontism in the Chinese population produced very different results. Da et al. found that the incidence of taurodontism was as high as 52.4% [6]; however, Li et al. calculated the incidence of taurodontism in premolars and molars was only 29.14%, and both study populations were approximately 30 years old [7]. The two methods used to calculate the taurodontism index were different. Therefore, the taurodontism index methods might be biased by age. The volume of the pulp chamber decreases with age, and the accompanying changes in the position of the top and bottom of the pulp chamber inevitably affect the measurement results of the Shifman and Chanannel method [1, 10]. Tooth abrasion with age certainly affects the crown-to-root ratio method but will appear later [27]. Once the CEJ is formed, it may be worn by tooth brushing or by acidic substances on the labial or buccal side [28, 29], but the position of the CEJ in the proximal and distal regions does not generally change with age. Therefore, the improved method is less affected by age.

Taurodontism poses challenges to the treatment of various dental condition, including endodontic diseases, periodontal diseases, orthodontics and prosthetics [8]; Therefore, it is extremely important to obtain accurate incidence rates. To sum up, the selection of diagnostic methods for taurodontism should be based on different age groups to choose different detection methods. The Shifman and Chanannel method can be used to measure juveniles with fully developed root tips [3]. For middle-aged patients, Seow and Lai’s method was selected as much as possible [4]. This improved method is more practical for elderly patients, with severe masticatory wear or obvious depression of the occlusion surface. This study proposes an improved diagnostic method for taurodontism and compares its effectiveness and provides a reference for clinicians to accurately diagnose and treat taurodontism in clinical practice.

Supporting information

S1 File. Data for Table 1 and Figs 3–6.

The first column is age. The 2–4 column is |BD|, TI, CB/R values, which are data sources in Figs 3–5 respectively. The last column is the values derived from the improved method, data for Fig 5.

(XLSX)

pone.0302810.s001.xlsx (13.3KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

Xingtai Science and Technology Project, NO.: 2022zz081, Yun-meng Da. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Keith A. Problems relating to the teeth of the earlier forms of prehistoric man. Proc R Soc Med. 1913; 6(Odontol Sect): 103–24. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Shaw JC. Taurodont teeth in South African Races. J Anat. 1928. Jul;62(Pt 4):476–498.1. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shifman A, Chanannel I. Prevalence of taurodontism found in radiographic dental examination of 1,200 young adult Israeli patients. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1978. Jul;6(4):200–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1978.tb01150.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Seow WK, Lai PY. Association of taurodontism with hypodontia: a controlled study. Pediatr Dent. 1989. Sep;11(3):214–9. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.MacDonald-Jankowski DS, Li TT. Taurodontism in a young adult Chinese population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993. Aug;22(3):140–4. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.22.3.8299833 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Da Y, Wang C, Zhang L, Wang F, Sun H, Ma X, et al. High prevalence of taurodontism in North China and its relevant factors: a retrospective cohort study[J]. Oral Radiology, 2022:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s11282-022-00630-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li Y, Qian F, Wang D, Wang Y, Wang W, Tian Y. Prevalence of taurodontism in individuals in Northwest China determined by cone-beam computed tomography images. Heliyon. 2023. Apr 15;9(4): e15531. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15531 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pach J, Regulski PA, Tomczyk J, Strużycka I. Clinical implications of a diagnosis of taurodontism: A literature review. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2022. Dec; 31(12):1385–1389. doi: 10.17219/acem/152120 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Afify AR, Zawawi KH. The prevalence of dental anomalies in the Western region of saudi arabia. ISRN Dent. 2012;2012:837270. Epub 2012 Jun 19. doi: 10.5402/2012/837270 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Carvalho TS, Lussi A. Age-related morphological, histological and functional changes in teeth. J Oral Rehabil. 2017. Apr; 44(4):291–298. Epub 2017 Jan 28. doi: 10.1111/joor.12474 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lamster IB, Asadourian L, Del Carmen T, Friedman PK. The aging mouth: differentiating normal aging from disease. Periodontol 2000. 2016. Oct;72(1):96–107. doi: 10.1111/prd.12131 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Agematsu H, Someda H, Hashimoto M, Matsunaga S, Abe S, Kim HJ, et al. Three-dimensional observation of decrease in pulp cavity volume using micro-CT: age-related change. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2010;51(1):1–6. doi: 10.2209/tdcpublication.51.1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Drenski Balija N, Aurer B, Meštrović S, Lapter Varga M. Prevalence of Dental Anomalies in Orthodontic Patients. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2022. Mar;56(1):61–68. doi: 10.15644/asc56/1/7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Patil S, Doni B, Kaswan S, Rahman F. Prevalence of taurodontism in the North Indian population. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013. Oct 1;5(4):e179–82. doi: 10.4317/jced.51118 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pach J, Regulski PA, Tomczyk J, Reymond J, Osipowicz K, Strużycka I. Prevalence of Taurodontism in Contemporary and Historical Populations from Radom: A Biometric Analysis of Radiological Data. J Clin Med. 2023. Sep 15;12(18):5988. doi: 10.3390/jcm12185988 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Muralles-Andrade M, Carreón-Aguiñaga N, Gaitán-Fonseca C, Pozos-Guillén A, Flores H. Age-related Variations at the Cementodentinal Junction: An Ex Vivo Study. P R Health Sci J. 2021. Jun;40(2):75–80. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Giambersio E, Barile V, Giambersio AM. Klinefelter’s syndrome and taurodontism. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2019. Jul 2;91(2). doi: 10.4081/aiua.2019.2.130 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Haghighat A, Pourarz S, Ghazizadeh M, Talebzadeh Z. An unusual case of tricho-dento-osseous syndrome. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2020. Dec 10;17(6):480–483. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Passarelli PC, Pasquantonio G, Manicone PF, Cerroni L, Condo’ R, Mancini M, et al. Orofacial signs and dental abnormalities in patients with Mulvihill-Smith syndrome: A literature review on this rare progeroid pathology. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018. May;97(18):e0656. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010656 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lepperdinger U, Angwin C, Milnes D, Sobey G, Ghali N, Johnson D, et al. Oral characteristics in adult individuals with periodontal Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. J Clin Periodontol. 2022. Dec;49(12):1244–1252. Epub 2022 Jul 29. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13698 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Steele-Perkins G, Butz KG, Lyons GE, Zeichner-David M, Kim HJ, Cho MI, et al. Essential role for NFI-C/CTF transcription-replication factor in tooth root development. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(3):1075–84. doi: 10.1128/MCB.23.3.1075-1084.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fons Romero JM, Star H, Lav R, Watkins S, Harrison M, Hovorakova M, et al. The impact of the eda pathway ontooth root development. J Dent Res. 2017;96(11):1290–7. doi: 10.1177/0022034517725692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Merametdjian L, Prud’Homme T, Le Caignec C, Isidor B, Lopez Cazaux S. Oro-dental phenotype in patients with RUNX2 duplication. Eur J Med Genet. 2019;62(2):85–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.05.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yang J, Wang SK, Choi M, Reid BM, Hu Y, Lee YL, et al. Taurodontism, variations in tooth number, and misshapened crowns in Wnt10a null mice and human kindreds. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2015;3(1):40–58. doi: 10.1002/mgg3.111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kantaputra PN, Hutsadaloi A, Kaewgahya M, Intachai W, German R, Koparal M, et al. WNT10B mutations associated with isolated dental anomalies. Clin Genet. 2018;93(5):992–9. doi: 10.1111/cge.13218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mostowska A, Biedziak B, Zadurska M, Bogdanowicz A, Olszewska A, Cieślińska K, et al. GREM2 nucleotide variants and the risk of tooth agenesis. Oral Dis. 2018. May;24(4):591–599. Epub 2017 Nov 3. doi: 10.1111/odi.12793 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ali AST, Varghese SS, Shenoy RP. Association Between Cervical Abrasion, Oral Hygiene Practices and Buccolingual Dimension of Tooth Surfaces: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022. Jul;14(Suppl 1):S403–S409. Epub 2022 Jul 13. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_692_21 ; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Bush PJ, Cohen RE. Toothbrushing and gingival recession. Int Dent J. 2003. Apr;53(2):67–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2003.tb00661.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mitic AD, Gasic JZ, Barac RG, Radenkovic GS, Sunaric SM, Popovic JZ, et al. Ultrastructural changes in the cemento-enamel junction caused by acidic beverages: An in vitro study. Microsc Res Tech. 2020. Feb;83(2):91–98. Epub 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1002/jemt.23392 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ranjdar Mahmood Talabani

26 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-41512An improved diagnostic method for taurodontism and a comparative study on its effectiveness evaluationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Da,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 11 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ranjdar Mahmood Talabani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript.

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file).

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file).

3. Please be informed that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"Xingtai Science and Technology Project, 2022zz081, Yun-meng Da"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Greetings,

The author(s) should follow instruction suggested by peer reviewer.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Minor corrections should be made.

The manuscript needs minor grammar checking with proper punctuation.

The authors should make the required corrections.

1-Abstract

The abstract is well-organized and clear.

The authors should make the required corrections that are highlighted.

2- Introduction

1. The authors should make the required corrections that are highlighted.

2. Give a definition of taurodontism and add refs to the introduction.

3-Material and method

1. The author should make the required corrections that are highlighted.

2. The author should mention the country of study to compare the study's findings with those of other countries in the discussion.

4- Results

1. The author should make the required corrections that are highlighted.

2. The author should change Fig 6, as a slight increase in B/R ratio was seen in the 50-69 age group compared to 30 -49, as shown in Fig 6.

3. In a classification of the improved method, correct symbols.

4. In a classification of the improved method, the authors should mention their results of CB/R and B/R according to this grade.

5- Discussion

1. The author should make the required corrections that are highlighted.

2. The author should put refs for other studies that used Shifman & channel method to determine taurodontism.

3. The authors should discuss their research findings regarding the (grade) of taurodontism of improved classification B/R , compare results to other countries, explain the cause of the difference, and add refs.

4. The author should add other references to the discussion (The Shifman & channel method can be used to measure juveniles with fully developed root tips. For middle-aged patients, Seow and Lai’s method was chosen as far as possible)

6- References

1. The author should make the required corrections that are highlighted.

2. Add other references, as the number of refs is few.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-41512_reviewer (1).docx

pone.0302810.s002.docx (229.2KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Review letter.docx

pone.0302810.s003.docx (17.4KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 May 7;19(5):e0302810. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302810.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Apr 2024

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your careful consideration and pertinent comments. According to the requirements, we have carefully revised the manuscript, and implemented one modification and response to the revision suggestions in the rosponds to reviewer letter. As requested, we have included the funding information below.

Yours

Sincerely

Yunmeng Da

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responds to Reviewers.docx

pone.0302810.s004.docx (20.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ranjdar Mahmood Talabani

15 Apr 2024

An improved diagnostic method for taurodontism and a comparative study on its effectiveness evaluation

PONE-D-23-41512R1

Dear Dr. Yunmeng Da

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ranjdar Mahmood Talabani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Ranjdar Mahmood Talabani

26 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-41512R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Da,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ranjdar Mahmood Talabani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Data for Table 1 and Figs 3–6.

    The first column is age. The 2–4 column is |BD|, TI, CB/R values, which are data sources in Figs 3–5 respectively. The last column is the values derived from the improved method, data for Fig 5.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0302810.s001.xlsx (13.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-41512_reviewer (1).docx

    pone.0302810.s002.docx (229.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review letter.docx

    pone.0302810.s003.docx (17.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responds to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0302810.s004.docx (20.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES