Next Article in Journal
Functionalization of PET with Phosphazene Grafted Graphene Oxide for Synthesis, Flammability, and Mechanism
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Fabrication Technique on the Microgap of CAD/CAM Cobalt–Chrome and Zirconia Abutments on a Conical Connection Implant: An In Vitro Study
Previous Article in Journal
First-Principle and Atomistic Modelling in Materials Science
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fracture Load of Metal, Zirconia and Polyetheretherketone Posterior CAD-CAM Milled Fixed Partial Denture Frameworks
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Air-Abraded Versus Laser-Fused Fluorapatite Glass-Ceramics on Shear Bond Strength of Repair Materials to Zirconia

Materials 2021, 14(6), 1468; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14061468
by Alaaeldin Elraggal 1,2,* and Nikolaos Silikas 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Materials 2021, 14(6), 1468; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14061468
Submission received: 7 February 2021 / Revised: 8 March 2021 / Accepted: 15 March 2021 / Published: 17 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ceramic Materials for Dental Implant and CAD-CAM Prostheses)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is of a low sientific level. 

This manuscript cannot be published. I think the best way is to reject it.

There are literatures that describe the effect of airborne Cojet  particles on the surface or zirconia very well. It is not reccomended to use these particles.

Fluor appatit particles cannot roughen the surface of zirconia and I

don´t believe that this material has a future as airborne material. Also, I do not think that it can be used as a powder for laser treatment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Something went wrong while submitting the manuscript. Pay attention to numerous places in which the text is:  Error! Reference source not found (lines 135, 189, 206, 268, 274, 289, 318, 344, 430, 438). Please correct.

The metodology is excellent and so is the documentation of the results. I have several recommendation before accepting the manuscript:

line 38: In case of a fractured ZBR, the treatment of choice is the replacement of the prosthesis [7]. This statement is incorrect. Fortunately in most cases the ZBR can be adjusted and polished, without the need to replace (J Adv Prosthodont 2012, 4: 76-83).  I recommend to adapt the criteria made by Heintze (grades 1,2,3). Accordingly the frequency of grades 1 and 2 are considerably higher than grade 3 (Int J Prosthodont 2010, 23:493-502). Please rephrase and correct.

line 219- Add to the Tetric subgroup also: monobond plus.

line 271- Add in brackets after Group C (Figure 5d).

Figure 5 is confusing. Match the order of the images to the groups; Group D will match Figure 5d, Group A will match Figure 5a and so on. Correct the text accordingly.

Strangely there is two times Figures 2, 3 and 4. Change accordingly to Figures 7, 8 and 9.

line 354- Figure 3 which is actually Figure 8 should have in the legend the meaning of the different colours.  

Add to the results some description of Figure 4 which is Figure 9 (SEM images of failures).

Reference 26 relate to fixed partial dentures and not crowns. In fixed partial dentures the rate of fractures is higher compared to crowns. Please elaborate on that issue. In crowns the rate is much lower (see: Monaco Carlo et al 2013). Also when referring to fixed dental prosthesis the rate in more recent publications is better than the one cited (Teichmann M, Clinical Oral Investigations 2018).  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Effect of air-abraded versus laser-fused fluorapatite glass-ceramics on shear bond strength of repair materials to zirconia

MANUSCRIPT NUMBER: materials-1122030

 

The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate  the effect of sandblasting with FGC powders or tribochemical silica-coated alumins and FGC+ND:YAG approaches on shear bond

strength (SBS) of different repair materials (feldspathic and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, and resin composite) to zirconia.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

The study is original and interesting. The investigation methodologies are appropriate for the paper topic. The results are well-presented and the study evidence were clearly discussed with recent and appropriate bibliography. The paper is recommended for publication after a minor revision.

 

Introduction

The present section is clear and fluent. The paragraph could be improved introducing the novel application of Nd:YAG laser to improve the thickness of TiO2  and for photobiomodulation procedures:

Scarano A, Lorusso F, Postiglione F, Mastrangelo F, Petrini M. Photobiomodulation Enhances the Healing of Postextraction Alveolar Sockets: A Randomized Clinical Trial With Histomorphometric Analysis and Immunohistochemistry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Jan;79(1):57.e1-57.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.09.008. Epub 2020 Sep 17. PMID: 33058773.

 

 

Several references are wrong: “Error! Reference source not found”

Please correct the citations in the main text

Methods

The authors should include in the manuscript more photographs of the study samples and the thermocycles loading experiment.

Results

The A, B, C and D groups treatment should be described in the caption of tab. 1. The 95% confident intervals could be added in the descriptive statistics. The leverl of significance of groups comparison is not clearly presented. I suggest to add a new table for the group comparison and the multivariate statistical analysis output.

Discussion

The shear loading set up should be discussed in this section. A loading of 500N seems to be more appropriated as occlusal loading force to perform a static axial load. The authors should discuss the rationale of this choice.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There are literatures on Cojet and other treatment methods detailing the effect of sanblasting.

DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2016.02.001

DOI:10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00070-6

DOI:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.04.043 

After reading these papers, you can  better understand the effect Cojet and other treatments.

Please improve Fig. 9 and conclusions

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop