Implementation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Digital Sculpting and Three-Dimensional Printing in Facial Epithesis—A Technical Note

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript structure and aim are vague. Some minor revision should be considered

-Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value added to your paper,  Please revise your conclusion part into more detail.

-Basically, you should enhance your contributions, hypothesis retain/reject, limitations, implications/applications, advantages/disadvantages, policies, underscore the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and revised our original manuscript accordingly. The introduction, methodology, discussion and conclusions have been edited with more actual references. All changes in the manuscript are outlined in the red font.

Reviewer 2 Report

Avoid acronyms in title.

Abstract - any key numerical results?

Short introduction, lacking real summary of context and position in literature. Insufficient references provided.

Avoid first person.

Scale bars missing from Fig 1 + 2

Insufficient experimental detail provided - there should be sufficient as to allow an independent researcher to repeat the study. This is presently far from being possible.

No real scientific content of note, just a higher level description. My feeling is that this is more of a sales pitch / note than a journal paper so should not be published in Applied Sciences.

No results presented - just a summary.

Discussion is focused on challenges and benefits but again puts insufficient scope on position in the literature.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and revised our original manuscript accordingly. Here, we describe our revisions and responses to your comments.

• All acronyms from the title were removed.
• The introduction has been edited with more references.
• Scale bars for Figure 1 and 2 were added.
• The description of the methodology has been extended.
• The results section was added.
• The discussion section has been extended with more actual references.

All changes in the manuscript are outlined in the red font.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the opinion of the reviewer, the manuscript presents the manufacturing capabilities of a well-known process related to additive manufacturing, including 3D scanning, 3D modelling and SLA methods. The topic of nasal prosthetics manufactured using incremental methods is not new. Research of this type has been known since 2014 in the manufacture of dentures in the facial skeleton using scanning, modelling and 3D fabrication, including nasal prostheses. Additive manufacturing is also used to produce negative moulds for the soft tissue foundry process. The reviewer didn't find scientific research in the manuscript. The literature review contains only 12 items, half of which are five or more years old.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and revised our original manuscript accordingly. We agree with the Reviewer that digital technologies used in epithesis workflow are not brand new. However, the article only highlights how the epithesis manufacturing process can be improved, in a way that is not so expensive and does not require many additional devices. Nowadays, new technologies characterized by an increasing resolution and accuracy cause constant changes in the production of epitheses. New perspectives for digital epithesis production were also added in the discussion section of the article with more actual references. All changes in the manuscript are outlined in the red font.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Avoid first person.

Inconsistent font sizes / spacing and hanging captions - avoid

The article has improved, and the authors have addressed the technical issues within the paper. However it remains a technical note and not a journal paper.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and revised our manuscript accordingly. Font sizes/spacing and hanging captions in the text have been changed. We agree with the Reviewer that the manuscript is a technical note as was mentioned in the title. However, the aim of the article is to highlight how the epithesis manufacturing process can be improved, in a way that is not so expensive and does not require many additional devices, which are widely available. Nowadays, new technologies characterized by an increasing resolution and accuracy cause constant changes in the production of epitheses.

All changes in the manuscript are outlined in the red font.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents the possibilities of using the available devices and software. The manuscript hasn't technological innovations, no new materials and research. The manuscript hasn't scientifically added value.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We agree with the Reviewer that the article does not contain new  technological innovations and new materials in methodology section. However, the aim of the article is to highlight how the epithesis manufacturing process can be improved, in a way that is not so expensive and does not require many additional devices, which are widely available. The need of maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation is very extensive (including patients with battlefield injuries) and not all patients have access to well-equipped units with qualified anaplastologist, that is why we tried to present this simplified and low cost method.

All changes in the manuscript are outlined in the red font.