Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors.

Great work. The introduction and discussion need to be improved but the work is excellent.

It would only clarify the inclusion criteria of the teeth, the informed consent if necessary and how they have determined the sample size.

  The introduction should be improved to explain what is the state of science regarding bioceramic cements and the formation of the hybrid layer and sealant infiltration in radicular tubules. It is an aspect that has not been clear.   Regarding the discussión, it would be interesting to know how heat has affected the use of bioceramics that only name it in the discussion.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your very helpful advices and guidelines regarding manuscript preparation. We have read your indications and the following modifications have been made to the manuscript:

1. Supplementary inclusion criteria of the teeth were presented. – paragraph 83
2. No informed consent was necessary for this in-vitro study.
3. Sample size calculation was included in the statistical analysis section– paragraph 135.
4. Supplementary information regarding the formation of the hybrid layer of bioceramic cements has been included in the introduction section – paragraph 53
5. The effect of the heat on bioceramic sealers has been presented in the discussion section - paragraph 315.

Reviewer 2 Report

The goal of the manuscript submitted by Marcel Chisnoiu et al. is to evaluate the adhesion characteristics of four root canal sealers. Using SEM, AFM, FTIR and push-out test, the author found that the two experimental sealers characteristics are comparable to that of the two consecrated materials. The introduction is relevant and theory based. The methods are generally appropriate. Overall, the results are clear except for table 1., the author has a conclusion that “a significant statistical association was observed between the diameter of the dentinal tubules and the dealer width”, please explain it in detail. I also suggest to make a table for push-out test results, it would be easy to read. My other concern is why the author only immersed samples in blood for FTIR Spectroscopy evaluation, not for all the experiments? Also, please change all the numbers with decimal point.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your very helpful advices and guidelines regarding manuscript preparation. We have read your indications and the following modifications have been made to the manuscript:

 

1. The statement “A significant statistical association was observed between the diameter of the dentinal tubules and the dealer width” was explained in detail in text as follows: In case of resin-based endodontic materials (both experimental and commercial) a direct proportion was observed between the diameter of the dentinal tubules and the sealer width. In case of bioceramic-based materials a reduced sealer width was observed, meaning a decreased penetration into the dentinal tubules.- paragraph 203
2. A table for push-out test results has been made. – paragraph 243

 

3. In case of FTIR Spectroscopy, as mentioned in materials and methods section, other experimental material samples were used, separate from all other tests, because this investigation allows a precise chemical analysis of material behavior in contact with the biological environment. It gives the opportunity to identify the chemical bonds that are developed between the dental structures and the endodontic sealer. In our study the intensity of the bands associated to the existing monomer indicates a good diffusion and consequently a high affinity of the resin monomer to the demineralized dentin in similar conditions to “in-vivo”.
4. All the numbers have been changed with decimal point.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript aims to study root canal sealers, namely two experimental endodontic sealers, as compared to two commercial widespread resin-based materials. The topic addressed is relevant and studies that explore new approaches to improve endodontic treatment should be considered. It fits the Applied Sciences scope (Applied dentistry).

The arguments are mostly supported by the experimental results. However, additional methodology would have enriched the results (e.g., extrusion assays).

Overall, the data are promising.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your very helpful advices and guidelines regarding manuscript preparation. We have read your indications and we would like to appreciate the suggestion regarding additional methodology. Supplementary investigations such as extrusion assays are considered for further testing of our experimental materials.