This is a valuable study since the primary outcome, soft tissue profile, is of great importance from both esthetic and functional points of view. The performed method is explained well and interpreted appropriately. However, the absence of control group (flap implant placement) is a major drawback which prevents making a conclusion about superiority of flapless technique over the flap procedures. Besides, in the written article, there are few minor points you should address:

1. The introduction is well, concisely written in a reasonable sequence. However, since in the 2nd column, 7th line it is mentioned that “limited controlled data are available”, the research ahead is expected to be “controlled”; while it is not. Therefore, it would be better to rewrite the sentence just before introduction of the purpose of the present study.
2. In “materials and methods”, according to the figures there must be two casts from each sample to be sectioned from mesiodistal and buccolingual planes. This should be stated in the text.
3. On page 326, 1st column, 2nd line, the phrase “between two groups” is unclear. Which two groups? The study is performed only on flapless implants.
4. In the “results” part, the value for 4 months is written 0 ± 0.3 mm, while it should be written as 0.0 ± 0.3 mm, as it is written in the table 2.
5. As in the “discussion” esthetic concerns are mentioned, it would’ve been better to mention how many of the cases were from the esthetic zone.
6. On page 328, 1st column, 19th line “Our results indicate that the flapless procedure is superior to flap implant procedures for maintaining original mucosal form surrounding implants” is not right since in this article the flap procedure was not studied.