Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Microleakage of Endocrowns with Different Intracoronal Depths and Restorative Materials Luted with Various Resin Cements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately too many mistakes.
line 13 - 14: cement types on 13 microleakage of endocrown
line 15 endocrown, should be in plural
line 19 rest - THE REST
line 19 - 20:were produced 19 by Vita Suprinity ceramic were divided - repetition!
line 24 compared with - compared to
line 33 - 34 (the) fractures ....
line 38 do not - does not
line 45 - 46: remake the sentence
line 52 more simply - simpler
line 57 - 60: remake the sentence
line 62 - 64: CLARIFY!
line 64: investigate - investigating
line 72: would be no difference....!?
line 82: positioned perpendicular (ly)
line 83 - 84 - remake the sentence
line 86: all these measurements can be done without X-ray!
line 122: in which...!?
line 125: intra oral digital scanner - point out the manufacturer (SIRONA) !?
line 135:...under force pressure for 60 seconds... What type of apparatus did you use. It is not clear enough. Give some more details.
line 155 - 158: repetition of the test explanation!
line 193: ...while the lowest for E-max!?
line 199 - 201: remake the sentence
line 208 - 209: singular or plural!?
277 - 278: remake the sentence
The whole explanation of the results in fig.2 are totally confused.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The experiment protocol has to be clarified and improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The paper need English language editing. Sentence structure and phrasing are awkward in many places, for example (lines 58-60) "The restorations of that endodontically treated tooth should be able to provide the ideal restoration, function, and aesthetics for these teeth which have suffered an excessive material loss and it should maintain the remaining tooth structure and not to show marginal microleakage"
2. Many sections of text need to be broken up into paragraphs.
3. In the results and in Table 1 - eliminate the decimal points
4, Figure 2 needs SD error bars.
5. The authors need to comment on the following points
* how was the tooth size (root length and cross-sectional surface area) standardized ?
* because NaOCl weakens dentin, how was the exposure time for NaOCl used in the canal controlled?
Other than these points, the paper is sound and is a useful contribution.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Well done. You have followed all proposed recommendations.
