Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The lateral screw retained method shows promising results since there are some problems: size and quality of the screw, preparation of abutment- sandblasting in the laboratory or directly in the mouth? Also, the clinical application of the screw in a specific position makes it probably problematic. It should be noted what is the best clinical position of the screw and how it affects esthetics?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I want to thank you for your paper and for having selected our journal. I have some comments that if properly addressed can notably increase the quality of your paper.

1.     First and foremost, a proper proofreading is needed as many phrases are not clear.

2.     Do the authors Think that the force adopted for screwing the crown on the abutment are too high and could therefore damage the screw itself?

3.     How was normality checked?

4.     Did the authors check that the assumptions for ANOVA were respected?

5.     Were the abutments used for cement-retained also sand blasted?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english could be imoroved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx