Optimal Design and Processing Technology of 3D Printed Tibial Implants
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Please explain in short why did you choose CoCrMo material.
P4 L113-114: although you later showed 4 samples, please here provide information about the number of tested samples
Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are not perfectly clear. Can you provide better ones?
Author Response
Point 1: Please explain in short why did you choose CoCrMo material. Moderate English changes required
Response 1: TC4 is used as tibial prosthesis in many countries, but the cost of TC4 is relatively high, and CoCrMo alloy is still used in some countries. We have made appropriate adjustments to the English writing of this article
Point 2: although you later showed 4 samples, please here provide information about the number of tested samples
Response 2: We have added relevant instructions on page 4 of the paper.
Point3: Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are not perfectly clear. Can you provide better ones?
Response 3: We adjusted the clarity of relevant pictures.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscripts suffers from numerous shortcomings. Introduction contains incorrect statements. For example, "However, artificial joint replacement is usually associated with surgery failures, such as loosening due to poor compatibility after implantation, as well as excessive wear induced by improper processing or post-processing [2] - not true.. Artificial joint replacement is nowadays rarely associated with failure. "Individualized implant has been extensively applied, which can be ascribed to its superiorities of good biocompatibility, excellent mechanical property and low loosening rate after implantation [3]" - not true - individualized implants have the same biocompatibility as standard ones.
The research presented at best can be viewed as standard engineering approach with little research if any. Symptomatically, there are 12 references referred to. This is dramatically low taking into account the subject of implants.
Author Response
Point 1: The manuscripts suffers from numerous shortcomings. Introduction contains incorrect statements. For example, "However, artificial joint replacement is usually associated with surgery failures, such as loosening due to poor compatibility after implantation, as well as excessive wear induced by improper processing or post-processing [2] - not true.. Artificial joint replacement is nowadays rarely associated with failure. "Individualized implant has been extensively applied, which can be ascribed to its superiorities of good biocompatibility, excellent mechanical property and low loosening rate after implantation [3]" - not true - individualized implants have the same biocompatibility as standard ones.
Response 1: We rewrite the relevant parts. (in red). We have made appropriate adjustments to the English writing of this article
Point 2: The research presented at best can be viewed as standard engineering approach with little research if any. Symptomatically, there are 12 references referred to. This is dramatically low taking into account the subject of implants.
Response 1: We have supplementary references 9, 10 and 15.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study, the three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of tibial implant was completed using the reverse combined with forward methods, optimization design was carried out on the constructed tibial implant model by adopting the parametric finite element method (FEM), and the SLM device was employed for the direct manufacture of tibial implant and to study its moulding techniques. The results indicated that, the tibial implant model completed using reverse and for ward methods combined with FEM displayed favorable modeling effect, with more homogeneous stress distribution.
The paper is very good and can be published as present
Author Response
Thank you very muchRound 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the efforts made by Authors in modifying the manuscript.
Major points have been addressed.
I do not have further comments.
