Silver-Releasing Micro-/Nanoporous Coating on Additively Manufactured Macroporous Ti-Ta-Nb-Zr Scaffolds with High Osseointegration and Antibacterial Properties
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Silver-releasing micro-/nanoporous coating on additively manufactured macroporous Ti-Ta-Nb-Zr scaffolds with high osseointegration and antibacterial properties” addresses an interesting topic and clearly describes the results.
Moreover, the paper also uses a good English. Therefore, it may be recommended for publication after minor revision:
1 - Authors should improve the quality of the figures 4 and 5.
2 - In the introduction part it is recommended to add some more discussion. The following publication is recommended to fulfill this section:
- Structure, drug absorption, bioactive and antibacterial properties of sol-gel SiO2/ZrO2 materials. Ceramics International, 2020, 46.18: 29459-29465.
- Use of the sol–gel method for the preparation of coatings of titanium substrates with hydroxyapatite for biomedical application. Coatings, 2020, 10.3: 203.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Porous Ti-10Ta-2Nb-2Zr biomaterials covered with volcano-like surfaces containing silver-based antimicrobial agents present an interesting approach in implantology. I have several objections to the research and most of it is technical nature:
First of all the Latin names of bacteria should be written in italic, as well as the terms in vitro and in vivo.
It is not clear to me what fig1 represents. Is it a graphic abstract or an experimental scheme? Explain and rearrange. It would be good to put a picture of the biomaterial. Fig. 2 should be described in more detail. Fig3 it is not clear to me why the images of bacterial growth were placed? Is the bacterial dilution the same in all images? In my opinion, a graphic display that needs to be enlarged is enough. Fig. 4 and 5 are very small and it is not clear which magnification was used and on which microscope it was imaged?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors describe a new porous material for dental implants with added silver, with a claimed antibacterial action.
The idea is interesting, but the manuscript is flawed in many parts and must be significantly improved in order to be published.
Just to cite a few of the major problems I found during the reading:
- In page 1 and in the first part of the introducion some parts of the template are still visible. They must be edited and removed.
- akronyms should always be defined at the first mention, in order to improve the readability of the manuscript
- figure 1 panels are too small and almost unreadable. It should be splitted in more than one figure with bigger graphics
- par 3.1 should be rewritten in order to make it understable. This paragraph is too schematic and lacking comment on the data.
- paragrpah 3.5. The authors claim that "On day 1, the number of cells cultured on 1 g/L Ag scaffolds was obviously greater 244 than that cultured on PEO-untreated scaffolds and 1.5 g/L Ag scaffolds". Why would this be obvious? And where are the data? If this is referred to data in Fig. 4B I can see no "obvious" difference at day 1. The same for comment on day 3 and 5. It is also hard to see any morphological differences in Fig. 4A, due to the low quality of the figure.
- Figure 5A: Ca and P maps are completely black
In general I found the figures of poor quality and hard to read, and the text quite confusing in most of its parts. I suggest a deep editing on both.
Anitbacterial data are promising and should be valorised in this paper, which needs for sure a deep revision before publishing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors answered all of my questions and significantly improved the quality and readability of the manuscript. The paper is now suitable for publication in tis present form.
