The Influence of Ionizing Radiation on Fluoride Release from Restorative Dental Materials: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see the attachment.

Author Response

Please find attached reply to Reviewer no 1. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In general, the abstract must to report clearly the aim. After that, a short but effective list of methods and results (also numeric results), and final the conclusions.

 

The materials and methods section must to be completely re-organized. Please follow GUIDELINES for in vitro report. Just in brief, you have to report the study design, the location where the study was performed, the used materials and the performed test… and in detail, how the tests were performed. A list of outcomes… the outcomes and the method used to measure them. Finally statistics and sample size … Thanks

 

Results are well organized. Please after re-organization of the M&M section, check that results are reported in the same order of the presented outcomes.

 

English language is difficult to understan. I suggest to use an external service.

 

 

- Study design must to be reported on the tile.

 

For example: The Influence of Ionizing Radiation on Fluoride Release from Restorative Dental Materials: a comparative in Vitro Study

 

- This statement must to be supported by literature. Otherwise, you can move in the discussion, has author’s opinion.

 

- Line 96. What “modern” means? Please, use a scientifically driven language.

 

- Lines 98-99 “ In later text materials names are used by their abbreviations: Equia Forte HT (EQ), Fuji IX (F9), Fuji Triage (F3), Cention (C), Activa Presto (AP), Luminos (L) and Beautifil II (B).”

 

Please add as foot note.

 

- Line 104 “were cured 20” 20? Times… 20 seconds… please clarify

 

• The materials were divided into groups of 10 samples (n=10). 

 

The materials were not divided. You have from the beginning different materials (already divided. So I think is better: Seven different materials were tested and compared… 10 samples in each group… and you should move early in the materials and methods section.

 

- “The sample size was calculated using the G* power program based on the 113 differences in numerical variables between the two measurements.”

 

Fist of all, sample size calculation must to be reported at the end of the M&M section. And please, try to be more specific. Which “numerical variables did you use”??? Reporting sample size calculation at the end, after outcome measures, it will be more clear for the readers.

 

- “After the standard solutions have passed quality control”… Which control???

 

Discussion

 

You introduce the concept of risk of cancer, but you didn’t introduce it. Please, clarify. Or you need to introduce before, as background of your study, or you need to remove later.

 

Please make discussion shorten. Limit to discussion of the results of the present research,

 

Lines 387-389 are a repetition of results. Please remove.

 

Clinical conclusions must not be draw. Please remove or move to the discussion section. For example “Every tested material showed some degree of fluoride ion release, which might help stop tooth cavities and caries from starting and spreading.”.

Paragraph 4.1 can be deleted. Please limit to… The limitation of the present research are…. For example… the study design (in vitro)…. And please add other limitations, for example what did you report in lines 361 - 363.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs a review from a specialist, maybe an external service.

Author Response

Please find attached reply to Reviewer no 2. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     Line 60-66 is about the bonding system, which is not relevant to the topic.

2.     Line 41, “expo-sure”; line 136, “cal-culated”.

3.     Table 3, what does “EKS” mean?

4.     Conclusion: “Glass ionomer cements are highly recommended as they also showed higher fluoride release under the influence of ionizing radiation.” This was not in the abstract. The abstract need to be revised according to your conclusion.

Author Response

Please find attached response to reviewers for 2nd round. 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf