Digital Procedures Compared to Conventional Gypsum Casts in the Manufacturing of CAD/CAM Adhesive Restorations: 3D Surface Trueness and Interfacial Adaptation Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study aims to compare digital procedures with traditional workflow through surface trueness analysis and interfacial adaptation. The paper is well-written and it deals with a modern topic of great clinical interest. Even if there are several studies in literature about this topic applied to conventional dental crowns, few studies worked on adhesive restorations.

Minor concerns could be raised:

I suggest using consistent terminology through the title and the rest of the manuscript. E.g. digital workflows vs chairside, traditional vs conventional.

Please, specify in paragraph 2.1 the burs used for the preparations and the thickness of the restorations (“accordingly to the recommendations of the manufacturer of the employed material” is not clear)

Reference n.30,31 in 2.2 paragraph is reported in incorrect format, please correct it

In paragraph 2.4 please specify beam hardening correction applied during reconstruction

Please, specify how the authors measured the thickness of the cement layer

Accordingly to what previously reported, I suggest to accept the present manuscript for publication after minor revisions.

Best regards.

Author Response

I suggest using consistent terminology through the title and the rest of the manuscript. E.g. digital workflows vs chairside, traditional vs conventional.
- Authors thanks for the comment, text has been revised accordingly for better understanding

Please, specify in paragraph 2.1 the burs used for the preparations and the thickness of the restorations (“accordingly to the recommendations of the manufacturer of the employed material” is not clear)

- Authors thanks for the comment, text has been expanded accordingly in order to clarify preparation procedure

Reference n.30,31 in 2.2 paragraph is reported in incorrect format, please correct it

- Authors thanks for the comment, text has been revised accordingly

In paragraph 2.4 please specify beam hardening correction applied during reconstruction

- Authors thanks for the comment, text has been revised accordingly

Please, specify how the authors measured the thickness of the cement layer

- Authors thanks for the comment. As specified in the text (paragraph 2.4), the measurement of the cement layer thickness was carried out automatically by the software "3D thickness analysis" function. Text has been revised to clarify this point

Reviewer 2 Report

: Thank you for your submission. Your manuscript was reviewed. This paper is useful to the readership. The paper is well written and the most useful part of the article is the well balanced discussion. I have no recommendations for this paper. The authors conclusions are logical, sound and support the data. The references are current and appropriate. The tables are appropriate and significant.

Author Response

Thanks for your positive comments to our work

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript might be a helpful reference for other researchers in this field.

Minor revision should be done before it can be published. For example,

(1) Abstract:   I am not sure the writhing style the authors adopted is okay or not. Perhaps in the authors’ field it’s common. If so I think it’s no problem.

(2) Reference citation:  At the beginning of Introduction, brackets were not used.  Similar format problems can be found in a few other places. This makes the authors’ writing and work look less polished and less professional. Just check the manuscript carefully once again and avoid  detailed format mistakes as possible as you can.

(3) Page 4, Line 105: Is the description “32  m layers” right? It seems hard to understand the resolution the authors wanted to tell.  

From the picture of 3DC shown in Figure 1, the 3D printing traces on the surface can be seen clearly. I guess whether the resolution was not high enough. Better casts with higher precision might be obtained when the authors can set higher resolution.

Author Response

(1) Abstract:   I am not sure the writhing style the authors adopted is okay or not. Perhaps in the authors’ field it’s common. If so I think it’s no problem.

Authors thanks for the comment. Adopted style is common in authors' field. Please, clarify if some specific correction are needed and we will perform them.

(2) Reference citation:  At the beginning of Introduction, brackets were not used.  Similar format problems can be found in a few other places. This makes the authors’ writing and work look less polished and less professional. Just check the manuscript carefully once again and avoid  detailed format mistakes as possible as you can.

Authors thanks for the comment, text has been revised accordingly. 

(3) Page 4, Line 105: Is the description “32  m layers” right? It seems hard to understand the resolution the authors wanted to tell.  

Thanks for the comment. The conversion of the file caused some errors with symbols, that have been manually corrected

From the picture of 3DC shown in Figure 1, the 3D printing traces on the surface can be seen clearly. I guess whether the resolution was not high enough. Better casts with higher precision might be obtained when the authors can set higher resolution.

Thanks for the comment. 3D printing in dentistry is still evolving, as reported in the present paper introduction. Quality, most of the times, has been reported to be fine, but still not sufficient (from hence the present study design). The 3D printer selected for the present study is considered to be one of the most efficient available, with a resolution of 32 microns (compared to an average of 50-75 microns)