Clinical Evaluation of Implant Suprastructures Depending on the Biomechanical Characteristics of the Materials Used

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The revised version is improved a lot. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your kind help!

Kind Regards!

Reviewer 2 Report

The study has improved greatly, some concerns to author as follow 

1. you reported the Null hypothesis or alternative hypothesis, please clarify 

2. why you didn't follow the randomized clinical trials protocol (eg. consort-statement)

3. radomization and bliniding is not reported 

4. Again, you ignored sample size calculation and reporting 

5. Grouping is not clear, which one is the control group ( standard abutment?), please make clarification for that 

6. Please report the methods of fabrication of CAD martials ( intraoral scanner or lab scanner, direct or indirect, pe of CAD/CAM system... is that important?

7. What is the new finding you would like to highlight in your manuscript? What new information you are providing? CAD technology already well established?

8. English revision is mandatory 

 

I would like to thank you for your great efforts  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your recomendations!
Please, see the attached cover letter.

Kind Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please provide a response letter.

Must answer each quries.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We apologize, that by some reason you haven't received our response on your first revision.
Please, see the attached file!
Kind Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1.Is the manuscript relevant and interesting? 

The article is relevant and interesting. 

2.How original is the topic? 

The topic is current. 

3.What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? 

The authors have collected and analyzed original data. 

4. Is the paper well written? 

Yes, the article is well written. 

5. Is the text clear and easy to read? 

Moderate English editing is required. 

6. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? 

Yes, the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. 

7. Do they address the main question posed?  Yes, the Authors addressed the main question posed. 

Other comments: 

·         English language: Moderate English editing is required. 

·         Introduction: This section needs few improvements. For example, Authors may include a brief sentence at the beginning of this section regarding innovations in implant dentistry based on the following reference: <<Innovative materials and technologies to improve treatment outcomes, reducing at the same time morbidity, biological, and surgical times are an intense research topic in dentistry [https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12010108]>>.  ·         Materials and methods: Please better define the target of statistical analysis and please indicate the software used for analysis.  ·         Results: Please better define the results of statistical analysis. Figures quality is not so good. Please use other software (e.g. GraphPad) 

·         Discussion: What is the main theme that emerges from the authors' analysis? Please improve. 

·         Conclusion: This section has been properly prepared. 

After making the indicated changes, I am available for a second round of peer review. 

Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your recommendations!
Please, see the attached file.
Kind Regarsd!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer 2: Report 2 missing

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Please find the attached file bellow.
Kind Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Introduction: This section was improved by authors but a brief sentence at the beginning of this section regarding innovations in implant dentistry based on the following reference should be included: <<Innovative materials and technologies to improve treatment outcomes, reducing at the same time morbidity, biological, and surgical times are an intense research topic in dentistry [https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12010108]>>. 

After making the indicated changes, the article may be suitable for publication.  

Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Please find the attached file bellow.
Kind Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In abstract: Please add numerical and p value-based results. These are missing.

2. This is a clinical trial. Please add a trial registry approval.

3. Please add sample size calculation. 

4. p-value tables can be combined.

5. p-value presentation need editing.

6. Introduction: missing gap statement and objectives.

7. Discussion: add novelty

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors report about "chipping", but 2 matters should be noted:

depending on the thickness of the  monolithic materials, chipping can be avoided by the dentist technician. 

and

chipping  will first of all depend on the occlusal and masticatory concept. To avoid chipping the treatment provider should better NOT use  wripodisation of contacts and abstain  from the use of "gnathologic" concepts as dentistry teaches them. On implants forces should be rather vertical, all other forces must be avoided (for the sake of implant and for the stability of prosthetics). 

Authors should report on these matters in more details, they should refer to implant standards and not on  dentists standards of occlusal surfaces and masticatory slopes, as the material of the crown  is not the only important point. 

Authors should also mention that its not exactly  objective to make such measurements with three groups on so few specimens.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript might be of high interest to the general reader, however there are major flaws in the text especially regarding methodology which in my opinion was not conducted properly. There are a lot of errors in the text, English needs to be revised. Reference style is not consistent. Therefore at this moment I cannot recommend publication in Applied Sciences as a high quality Journal. 

Please see the attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors didn't follow the recommended guidelines for publishing clinical study, registration of the study with ethical approval not included. No sample size calculations nor randomization were followed.