Mechanical Resistance of Implant-Supported Crowns with Abutments Exhibiting Different Margin Designs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
I have read the article and believe that some additions are needed to improve the clarity, structure, and accuracy of the information presented:
Introduction: What difficulties can arise in choosing implant abutments according to the specifics of each patient?
It should be remembered what the recent innovations in CAD/CAM technologies are and what materials are used for abutments.
Does marginal design influence the implant's long-term performance and the treatment's success?
Material and method: The characteristics of each material used should be detailed, as well as their mechanical characteristics.
Some additional specifications about the Instron M1185 testing machine, the Chewing Simulator CS-4, and the Carl Zeiss microscope should be added. What were the test parameters?
What were the exact settings of the testing machine (e.g., loading speed, force application mode)? How was the equipment calibrated to ensure the accuracy of the tests?
Results: How were the instruments calibrated to ensure uniform force application and to prevent possible measurement errors?
What is the significance of the differences observed between groups?
It would be necessary to explain more clearly the differences in compressive strength between groups that may be important.
A more detailed description of the statistical results is needed.
Discussions: More explanation is needed about the reasons why the abutments with vertical edge design performed better than those with chamfer design.
It would be useful to compare the results of this study in more detail with other recent studies.
What are the limitations of this study?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment bellow!

Kind Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript " Mechanical Resistance of Implant-Supported Crowns with Abutments Exhibiting Different Margin Designs" it's a scientific work, that investigate the mechanical resistance of customized implant abutments with different types of marginal design in laboratory environment. The manuscript is scientifically relevant, and I can make the following considerations:

Abstract:

- Very extensive abstract with around 400 words, the maximum being 200. Reduce the Abstract and make the summary more objective.

Introduction:

The Introduction is well-structured. In the last paragraph, the justification for the study should be included, along with the objective.

Methods:

- Lots of images, this is a magazine about scientific results. Figure 1 should be reformulated into descriptive text. Figures 2,3,6 should be removed and can be relocated to some Supplementary Information if the reader wants to go deeper into the protocols.

- linha 149 e 150, diz que “The suprastructures were subjected to fatigue loading test for 1 250,000 cycles, representing 5 years of clinical exploitation, at a frequency of 2 Hz”. How do you explain that 1 250,000 cycles correspond to 5 years, which ISO standard was followed?

Results

- The results are described correctly, consistent with the methodology used, and in a logical sequence.

- Figure 7 should be removed because it adds nothing to the results.

- Table 4 is an image and has no definition, it must be converted into a table.

Discussion

- The discussion is very brief. In the discussion, expand the comparisons of the results obtained with literature studies and develop the discussion further. Also in the discussion compare the number of cycles performed over 5 years with previously published studies.

- In the discussion, in its last paragraph, include the limitations of the study and future perspectives.

- The conclusion is in accordance with the objective outlined by the authors and is supported by the results obtained.

- Bibliographic references are in accordance with the journal's standards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment bellow!

Kind Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

COMMENTS AND OPINION:

• Please reduce the words number in Abstract section. According to Template file, maximum of the 200 words is acceptable!
• Group A and group B have the same description in Abstract?!
• Arrange Table 1 in format form according to Template file!
• Line 104: 4.5 mm
• Line 114: add point symbol!
• Figure 2: Below the figures add letters of affiliation: a) and b)
• Line 127: (Figure 3).
• Line 128: add point symbol!
• Figure 5: Below the figures add letters of affiliation: a) and b)
• When you analyzed fatigue stress and compressive stress, did you use a specific standard to which you performed the tests on the samples? You should list the standards used for the tests in the text of the paper and add them to the Reference section!
• The equipment and measuring devices that you used in your research are only listed in the text of the paper with the names of their manufacturers. It is necessary to provide technical characteristics and also list them in the list of references!
• You mention a microscope and mention an expert who analyzed the samples after fracture. What expert (one of the authors)? It would be good to show the samples that broke and indicate the interpretation of the fracture results!
• Arrange Table 2 in format form according to Template file!
• Lines 188-190: Arrange font height!
• Arrange Table 3 in format form according to Template file!
• Line 194: (Figure 7).
• Please describe better Figure 7. Below the figures add letters of affiliation: a) and b). On the diagram are missing marks on the abscissa and ordinate axes! Also, numbers on the diagram are difficult to read!
• Arrange Table 4 in format form according to Template file!

Final opinion:

Please fix the paper according to comments and questions added in this review form!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment bellow!

Kind Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I consider your manuscript entitled "Mechanical resistance of implant-supported crowns with abutments exhibiting different margin designs" interesting, it brings new data in the continuously evolving field of implant-supported restorations.

However, the manuscript needs some improvements. Please find below my observations and recommendations.

1. The Abstract should be reduced to a maximum of 200 words, as indicated in the Instructions for Authors section from the journal's website.
2. Also in the Abstract section, the first sentence does not seem to match the research conducted, because the expression "minimally invasive approaches" is usually used to describe natural tissues economy, which does not apply in case of implants. Please consider changing this expression.
3. Groups A and B are identical in the description from the Abstract section, please correct this.
4. A Statistical analysis subsection should be added to the Methodology, describing the software used (and provider), the statistical tests, and the cut-off point of statistical significance.
5. The description of the "Modes of failure" (lines 195-199) should be moved to the Methodology section. The Results section should not contain references citation.
6. A post-hoc test is necessary after ANOVA, to accurately identify between which groups statistically significant differences occur. Also, the statements in lines 237-238 cannot be made if they are not supported by these post-hoc tests.
7. More comments on the results obtained are necessary in the Discussion section, and more details from the cited research. The Discussion section should be much more detailed.
8. Comments should also be made on the fact that the tests were done on the dried constructions, and not in a wet environment (to reproduce the conditions in the oral cavity).
9. Please add study limitations and future research directions, at the end of the Discussion section.
10. Many of the references cited are old (10 or 15 years, or even older), please try to replace them with more recent ones.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs English correction.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment bellow!

Kind Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with the subject of dental structures and uses typical dental jargon. I would therefore suggest introducing some explanations, e.g. after lines 46-49, there could be a scheme that explains which exactly element is mentioned

• Lines 54-56: “Metals and their alloys have been the most commonly used materials in dental implant treatment for decades. Titanium is established as an optimal material in the fabrication of implant abutments.” Why? It is worth explaining this issue to the reader, titanium is a difficult material to manufacture, while its high mechanical and corrosion resistance (but not friction) gives it an advantage over other alloys.
• Line 72: “high mechanical resistance”- this is a too general term. It should be explained, which mechanical properties are crucial?
• Lines 80-81: “However, fractures of implant suprastructures are still one of the most common complications in dental treatment” are there any statistics on this subject? What is the main cause of cracks?
• Line 83: BOPT – what is this technique?
• Figure 1: “Suprastructures ,made” – the space before the comma should be moved after the comma. The caption itself is laconic and should explain what is given in the scheme. Why were these configurations chosen for testing?
• Table 1: Please provide the mechanical parameters of these materials and compositions.
• Figure 3. I suggest formatting, placing larger panels and organizing it.
• Figure 4: Give information what are the differences between these groups, put some information even on the photos.
• Line 149: on what basis was this number of cycles determined? The tests must have lasted a very long time, over 7 days (non-stop) per sample. Where does the nominal force value of 300 N come from?
• Table 2: First of all, it is “compression force”. “Compressive strength” is the compression force in N related to the initial cross-sectional area (in mm2), which gives the unit MPa. I don’t think that a table with all the results should be inserted into the paper. It is better to show the graph and upload the raw data as supplementary.
• Figure 7, left panel – what does it show – a model of what? What is on the individual axes?
• Figure 8: Error bars should be plotted on the bars of average values ​​(in Excel -> Graph design -> add graph element -> error bars). The axes should be labeled. “Compression strength” is in what units (should be in MPa, but here it is related to compression force, i.e. in N)?
• Table 4 does not contribute anything.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be checked again.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment bellow!

Kind Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

The changes made to the manuscript followed the requested guidelines. The introduction, Materials, Methods, and Discussion section were significantly improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and the valuable guidance,
which has significantly improved our manuscript.

Kind Regards!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the research presented in the paper is really interesting and high quality, but the way the You made the corrections is really confusing and I can't understand their corrections at all. The paper now looks significantly unreadable and incomprehensible. The research in the field of compressive strength analysis of implants and construction designs that were compared, and the methodology and equipment that was used are completely relevant.

In this form is not possible to accept this paper! Please fix it and make your paper readable!

Thank You!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and the valuable guidance,
which has significantly improved our manuscript.
We improved the discussion section and try to make the manuscript more clear.
However, the 'Track changes' option does not allow us to remove all corrections we made, and that is why the text looks not well organized where corrections are made.
Kind Regards!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for considering most of my recommendations in the revised version of your manuscript.

However, the Discussion section still needs improvement, this section should be much more detailed. Please add more comments on the results obtained and more details from the cited research. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and the valuable guidance,
which has significantly improved our manuscript.
We added more information in the 'Discussion' section and hope it will be better know.
Thank you very much again!

Kind Regards!

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments were taken into consideration and improved in the revised version of the manuscript. I endorse it for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and the valuable guidance,
which has significantly improved our manuscript.

Kind Regards!