Effect of Over-The-Counter Tooth-Whitening Products on Enamel Surface Roughness and Microhardness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript of considerable interest, very original, in line with the purpose of the special issue.

Before being subjected to any publication, a peer review is required.

Abstract: it is necessary to remove the commercial names and specify the active ingredient of the product

keywords: add more specific ones in line with the study

Introduction: add the treatment needs based on the patient's characteristics that require an aesthetic treatment and regulatory references based on the states in which they are treated.

Materials and methods, well described.

Results, very confusing, reorganize table 1, and put more emphasis on the results obtained by means of a summary table, highlighting the pros and cons.

Discussion: adding a post-bleaching treatment section, to restore a remineralization layer to the enamel, as future objectives, through the use of biomimetic hydroxyapatite extensively studied by Prof Scribante's research group.

Conclusions: reformulate them through a proactive action to maintain the health of the enamel

Bibliography: add references as required in discussions

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting article about the over the counter whitening products. However, there are some concerns which I found across the manuscript.

Abstract: Re-write abstract, it is confusing and in does not provide the idea of the study to the reader. Line 22: grammatical errors

Introduction: Lines 40-42 you have use many times the word color. line 65 Mention the % of CP or H2O2 of OTC products.

M&M Line 125: better move it above the surface roughness test and microhardness measurement. Maybe group B is the control group

Discussion: Lines 233-235, Lines 245-246: add reference. Line 252-253: consider moving it to the introduction. So the reader can understand why you use it in the M&M section.Line 263: "Surprisinsly" better use another word. "On the other hand": better use another phrase.

Line 317: move the word conclusion to the start of the paragraph

Line 321: A better outcome of a bleaching agent should be evaluated by a colometric evaluation

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

This study focuses on an exciting topic using a detailed methodology. However, I should point out some suggestions.

The authors should identify the teeth' storage conditions in the methodology section. The paper will improve with a methodological sequence scheme.

In the discussion section, the authors should detail the enamel thickness of tooth topography. The lines 255-258 (The most important surface property is roughness because of its effect on dental hygiene and it also has a main role in plaque accumulation, aesthetics, gingival irritation and secondary caries formation. In this study, surface roughness was measured by quantitative profilometric method as it is the widely used method and allows for quantitative measurement of surface irregularities) are not addressed in this section. Have the authors compared the use of this variable? Two study times and no follow-up will be sufficient for the impact of the results? A substantial limitation of this study was the non-conservation of artificial saliva; it should be clarified to minimize its negative influence on the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I was happy to review this article. 

General comments refer to the topic and the choice of the journal, is there any special issue where this paper could fit? Otherwise the article is not for Applied Sciences.

Comments by sections:

Title: remove (OTC), and change from over the counter to over-the-counter.

Introduction: OK. Some paragraphs are more for discussion.

Aim: OK

M&M: well done

Result: OK

Discussion: hold on the basic and important results and discuss it. There is no need ti expand with already known facts from literature. Remove statistics values in this section.

Conclusion: to long. Remove recommendation to discussion section. Follow the aim only.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been correctly revised according to my comments, only the addition of the biomimetic hydroxyapatite as suggested is missing in the discussions. The authors entered correctly only fluoride and amorphous calcium phosphate, the one I indicated in the first review is missing.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment, biomimetic hydroxyapatite effect was added to the remineralization paragraph in the discussion citing one of Prof Scribante's articles.

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract: Correct the structure according to the journal demands. Line 18 there are two commas, 

Author Response

Thank you for your comment, the abstract was corrected following the journal guidelines.

The extra comma was deleted

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

It should be noted that all conditions after tooth extraction must be clarified. The authors wrote, "Sixty healthy human molars, free of enamel defects, caries, and heavy stains, were collected and stored until use." The post-extraction timeline conditions should be considered and clarified after the extraction or collection of the tooth.

The authors do not answer the assumption: that enamel thickness is crucial in the bleaching process, namely following the topographic area of ​​the crown. And they do not present a methodological schematization of the work.

The authors do not answer the question: Will two study times and no follow-up be sufficient to impact the results?

This work is an experimental research type with severe limitations in practice, so we suggest developing the manuscript accordingly and not performing a comparison with the actual condition of the bleaching procedure. Despite the thought-provoking theme, the research has limitations to be considered a relevant article.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review my paper, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have made the necessary revisions. I have no more concerns at this point. Thank you

Author Response

Thank you.