Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This systematic review addresses a timely and relevant topic—the application of 3D bioprinting in endodontic tissue engineering. The authors have followed PRISMA guidelines and conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases. While the topic is of potential interest, this manuscript has fundamental flaws that preclude its acceptance for publication in its current form. The most critical issues are as follows:

1. The review is predominantly descriptive. It catalogues the findings of the nine included studies but fails to synthesize them critically. The "Discussion" section largely reiterates the results without offering a deeper analysis of the heterogeneity in study designs, the reasons for conflicting or consistent results, or the mechanistic implications of the material properties.
2. The review notes that only two studies assessed antimicrobial activity. Given that persistent infection is highlighted as a major barrier to success in regenerative endodontics, this topic warrants a more in-depth discussion.
3. While the title and research question specifically focus on "3D bioprinted scaffolds and bioinks" — which, by definition, involve cell-laden or biologically active constructs intended for tissue engineering — the inclusion criteria encompass non-bioprinted 3D printing (e.g., FDM-fabricated PLA scaffolds) and acellular models (e.g., Leveque et al.'s study on release kinetics from 3D-printed inserts). Revise the title to better reflect the scope of the study, e.g., "3D-printed and bioprinted scaffolds in regenerative endodontics".

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please refer to the attached document.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript “3D bioprinted scaffolds and bioinks for endodontic tissue 2 engineering: a systematic review” presents a systematic review on 3D-printed and bioprinted scaffolds and bioinks for regenerative endodontics. The topic is timely and relevant, given the increasing interest in biofabrication strategies for dental tissue engineering. The manuscript is generally well-structured and demonstrates a solid understanding of both biomaterials and biological outcomes. The discussion section is comprehensive and integrates physicochemical, biological, and methodological aspects effectively. However, while the manuscript is scientifically sound, several areas require clarification and refinement.

Point 1

Antimicrobial Analysis (Section 3.7–3.8)
Only two studies were included.
Could the authors increase the number of cited publications on this topic?

Point 2

After carefully examining the bibliographic references provided by the authors, it is my professional opinion that the number of references (59) for a review falls short of expectations. A cursory search of the manuscript's title keywords from the past decade reveals a vast array of over 200 articles, medical reports, book chapters, and reviews that could be of relevance to the topic at hand.

Point 3

The discussion summarizes multiple materials (MTA, Biodentine, nHA, NAR, PCL-based composites), but lacks clear comparative evaluation.

Could the authors show which material systems are most promising overall? What is the best strategy overall?

Point 4

Can the authors describe the ideal scaffold?

Point 5

Grammar and Style

Several minor typographical errors should be corrected throughout.

Line 316: “MTT assays [9,43] (indicated overall biocompatibility…” → missing closing parenthesis.

Line 496 ([2,9,12,23,42,) remove extra comma

Point 6
Comments on the Quality of English Language

Regarding the English language, I don’t have observed inaccuracies. But I recommended that authors conduct a thorough review to identify and rectify any mistakes prior to final submission.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Regarding the English language, I don’t have observed inaccuracies. But I recommended that authors conduct a thorough review to identify and rectify any mistakes prior to final submission.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for the possibility to review presented manuscript of systematic review dedicated to 3D bioprinted scaffolds and bioinks for endodontic tissue engineering.

Presented paper of is of high scientific relevance and valuable clinical perspective.

In general described Methodology and Results are well structured and complete, matching formulated objective.

In Results section it may be useful to mention what time period selected papers represents, and if possible to mention if there was any time-dependent changes in using/developing 3D bioprinted scaffolds and bioinks for endodontic tissue engineering; was there any shift from using one type of scaffolds to another one considering improvement in bioprinting in general?

In Discussion section it may be beneficial to mention what are the major obstacles of implementing bioprinted scaffolds within the everyday endodontic practice, and if such could change general view on providing regenerative endodontic procedure?

Considering present trends it may be beneficial to mention at the end of Discussion section how application of AI and machine learning may impact biological bioprinting for endodontic practice.

All the mentioned aspects are of recommendation suggestions nature, and not obligatory, considering already high quality of the paper.

Conclusion is formulated very well and integrated following obtained results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf