Surface Morphology Changes of Bleached Dental Ceramics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for choosing me as a reviewer of this manuscript. 
In my opinion, the topic of this manuscript is very important and interesting. 
The aim  of the performed research was the evaluation of hydrogen peroxide and carbamide peroxide bleaching impact 
on surface roughness of lithium disilicate, leucite-reinforced glass-ceramics, and zirconium dioxide ceramics. 
The problem is actual and the introduction section is reliable and comprehensive with an actual review of the literature. 
I recommend the manuscript for publication, but after some major revisions:

Introduction:
Lines: 36-39-citation is needed
Lines 61-62-please add the citation
Lines 68-69-please add the citation
Discussion
There is no discussion section. This is a very important part of the manuscript. Authors must add the discussion section
and compare their results with the results of other authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, some suggestions

• Material and methods line 150: it is not clear how and when the scan befaore bleaching was performed (this issue is mentioned only in results section)
• results, line 165: you mention "specific scanning location", please, clarify how this "specific location" was chose. Based on some characteristic? how did you chose the places on which made the measurements?
• The discussion section is not presented. Please follow the "instruction for authors" in preparing the manuscript
• it should be inetresting to deeply investigate the clinical influence of the roughness of different surface. For instance, what clinicians have to say to patients about this issue?
• It could be interesting to be more accurate in specify how the measurements were taken
• It should be at least evaluated the performances of different bleaching systems in terms of effectiveness (spectrophotometer???). This is an important issue to discuss comparing it with the performances in terms of roughness

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments have been addressed. Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank You!

Kind regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author, the discussion section seems to be a  report of results. Please could you better clarify the implications, limitations, weaknesses and other aspects of your research?

The conclusion section is too long 

Please, avoid the first person in the text

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf