Next Article in Journal
Healing Efficiency of CNTs-Modified-UF Microcapsules That Provide Higher Electrical Conductivity and EMI Shielding Properties
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Quality Characterization Method of Micro-Injection Products Based on Cavity Pressure
Previous Article in Special Issue
Development of a Multi-Layer Skin Substitute Using Human Hair Keratinic Extract-Based Hybrid 3D Printing
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

The Application of Polycaprolactone in Three-Dimensional Printing Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Polymers 2021, 13(16), 2754; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13162754
by Xiangjun Yang 1,2, Yuting Wang 1,2, Ying Zhou 1,2, Junyu Chen 1,2,* and Qianbing Wan 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Polymers 2021, 13(16), 2754; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13162754
Submission received: 30 June 2021 / Revised: 25 July 2021 / Accepted: 12 August 2021 / Published: 17 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polymer Composite Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript: The application of polycaprolactone in three-dimensional printing scaffolds for bone tissue engineering

The manuscript presents very good work related to polycaprolactone in three-dimensional printing and going to be interesting for the readers.

Some minor comments are as follows.

  1. Authors need to include some interesting data in the abstract part of the manuscript.
  2. English must be improved.
  3. Novelty of the work be established.
  4. All the important results reported be compared in a tabular form to establish the superiority of the work.
  5. Authors need to add future prospective of presented research in the conclusion part of the manuscript.
  6. Authors need to incorporate some recent reference related to the manuscript to make it more interesting for the readers.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript needs revision as it has some drawbacks.  only the tables seem good and most references are updated. my detailed comments are listed below. they should be carefully implemented to inmprove the manuscript

1-sect 4 has subsections which are not in same goal. please consider better classification. Also they are too short subsections.

2-The order of materials in tables are not good. for instance, table 4: would be better to bring cells, then other non-live materials, e.g. Lithium

3-New ref should be added in the introduction, or would be better in section 2 e.g., Mat Sci & Eng: C 2021,  124, 112057; Acta Biomaterialia 2021, 122, 1, Pages 26-49 ; Sec 2 needs revision and does not compare different method, e.g., FDM , bioprinting, etc. Also it would be good to have a scheme to show different method of printing, if possible

4-Please add multicompartment figures including scheme+ figure data (curve and qualitative image). Please find very good and eye-catching figures for your section. Inside of the figures, the please do not use Time new Roman font. Please use Helvetic (Roboto) font. At  least 4 figures should be added. Please see and use and cite J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 15, 8003–8024; 

5-References: There are some old references. Please remove/replace the outdated references. Some of them are listed below but please replace the other references.

 Fedorovich NE, Alblas J, Hennink WE, Oner FC, Dhert WJ. Organ printing: the future of bone regeneration? [J]. Trends 304
Biotechnol.2011,29(12):601-606.

 

6- I haven't seen application in dentistry in regenerative medicine. please add; see the above suggested paper.

7-perspective should be added

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop