References

The authors correspond positively to the suggestions.Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?NoIf applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?NoAre all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?NoIs the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?NoAre sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?NoReviewer Expertise:NAI 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.
The authors improved the manuscript. However, some suggestions should be pointed out in the Methods section.
"All the students use (/used?) the Dolphin software before"… is it really what the authors intended to write?The original information of the manuscript is its impact on orthodontic learning and students' new skills and satisfaction (instead of "student's acceptance towards it"). It is difficult to understand the sentence, "The collection and input of these data were completed by three postgraduates, with two postgraduates responsible for the inputting and the third one in charge of checking." It should be clarified. The student's contribution to the cephalometric analysis and their performance and satisfaction evaluations should be clear. Intra and inter-class correlations were based on the instructors' data. What is its impact on the present study?Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?NoIf applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?NoAre all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?NoIs the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?NoAre sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?NoReviewer Expertise:Medical and Dentistry Higher Education and Health QualityI 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.











All my requirements have been addressed. The manuscript has been improved and, in my opinion, it is suitable for indexing.Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?YesIf applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?YesAre all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?YesIs the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?PartlyAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?PartlyAre sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?YesReviewer Expertise:Orthodontic, Orthognati surgery, cephalometic, maxillary expansion, interceptive orthodontics, fixed appliances, clear aligners, pediatric dentistryI 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.
The topic is interesting for assessing learning from the student's perspective, but the title does not correspond to the content. The methodology section is the weakest part of the work. The authors should adjust the study design, including the analysis of intra and inter-observer accuracy and monitoring activities during the study. The selection of participants should include the inclusion and exclusion criteria as the previous use of digital technology for cephalometric measurements impacts the students' skills.Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?NoIf applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?NoAre all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?NoIs the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?NoAre sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?NoReviewer Expertise:Medical and Dentistry Higher Education and Health QualityI 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.





 As regard to the monitoring activity, we’ve added that “During this pedagogical experiments, two instructors took responsibility for guiding students with cephalometric measurements, assuring the measurement order of two student groups, monitoring the process of giving out and recollecting the questionnaire, as well as assistance in the data analysis.” in the



Thank you for submitting your research. The manuscript is interesting but some changes are necessary before taking it into consideration for publication. Here are my concerns:
ABSTRACT: "Besides, the results of most items by digital technology were closer to the
INTRODUCTION: replace the word subdiscipline with discipline."These factors may not only affect accuracy of measurements, but also contribute to destruction of students’ enthusiasm for further learning." Are you sure with this sentence?STUDY DESIGN: pre-test instruction. Please better explain what do you mean and what instruction have been given.FLOW CHART: anatomical point calibration: calibrated their standard. What do you mean? Specify which standard.CEFALOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS: it is not clear if the same lateral teleradiography have been used for all the students. Better specify.Illustration of 15 commonly used measurement items: which kind of tracing have been used?Please better specify the aim of this study.Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?YesIf applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?YesAre all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?YesIs the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?PartlyAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?PartlyAre sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?YesReviewer Expertise:Orthodontic, Orthognati surgery, cephalometic, maxillary expansion, interceptive orthodontics, fixed appliances, clear aligners, pediatric dentistryI 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.
Thank you for submitting your research. The manuscript is interesting but some changes are necessary before taking it into consideration for publication. Here are my concerns:
















