Wear Behavior of Monolithic Zirconia after Staining, Glazing, and Polishing Opposing Dental Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper, “Wear behavior of monolithic zirconia after staining, glazing and polishing opposing dental restorative materials” is about the effect of staining, glazing, and polishing on the wear behavior of 5 mol% yttria tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (5Y-TZP) opposing several materials.

The article needs some improvements to be performed before this manuscript can be considered suitable for publication.

 

Line 30:

“Polishing was recommended to promotes staining durability and decrease wear rates opposing MCR and LD. “

please correct promotes to promote

 

Lines 60-2:

The authors should also mention that among the cited clinical consequences due to wear, *marginal gap* can be one of the most important affected by occlusal load and especially by the load occurring during stress which is generally higher than normal.

The authors could cite the following paper that analyses cyclic fatigue / occlusal load on the marginal adaptation of high translucent zirconia overlays. Baldi A, Comba A, Ferrero G, Italia E, Michelotto Tempesta R, Paolone G, Mazzoni A, Breschi L, Scotti N. External gap progression after cyclic fatigue of adhesive overlays and crowns made with high translucency zirconia or lithium silicate. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022 Apr;34(3):557-564. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12837. Epub 2021 Nov 16. PMID: 34783440; PMCID: PMC9298883.

 

Table 1: Please add lot number of the investigated materials

 

Every material should have Product name, company, city, Country). Please check all the document and uniform.

 

Line 100:

The authors wrote:

“and a device to standardize the polishing “

Please add the type of device. Or if a prototype was used, specify it.

 

Line 119:

with sequential grit paper (320, 400, 600, 1200, 3M ESPE)

Please use:

with sequential sandpaper (PRODUCT NAME, 3M ESPE, St.Paul, MN, USA) (grit: 320, 400, 600, 1200)

 

 

Please add other limitations of this study at the end of the discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

After deeply reviweing the current manuscript I did not find the present work add any new for the research field. Very simple statistical analyses were performed with any iformation and analysis about the morphological and microstructural investigation, which must be included to support the outcome results. Even the introduction did not discribe very well the history of different types of (Y-TZP) 2,3,4 and 5Y-TZP and its advantages and disavantage. There are many studeis discribed perfectly the mechanical and wear behavior some cited in the current manuscript and other not. Therefore, I recommend to reject the manuscript with the current form and maybe considering after adding more information anad investigation about the morphological and microstructure of the samples.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is scientific. 

I have the following comments and questions for the authors about the article:

- Please define in detail which factors play a primary or secondary role for the lifetime of these progressive kermic layers.

- what role does the roughness of the surfaces or the porosity of these investigated materials play?

- The samples were evaluated at 300,000 cycles? On what basis did you choose this number of cycles?

- For a better visualization of the evaluated samples, it would be appropriate to present their shape and dimensions. e.g. drawing or sample model in Chapter 2.

- If it will be materials intended for the oral cavity, one of the factors will be the acidity of the environment, "pH". Have you also considered the effect of acidity on changes in functional surfaces?

- Based on your experiments, which material used in this study would you define as the best?

- An important role is also played by the economic aspect of the application of individual materials or production procedures. In the conclusions, could you also present this relatively important aspect, which is often a limiting factor for the design and application of component production?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The author recommends that the submitted article entitled: WEAR BEHAVIOR OF MONOLITHIC ZIRCONIA AFTER STAINING, GLAZING AND POLISHING OPPOSING DENTAL RESTORATIVE MATERIALS be completely rewritten.

 

Recommendation:

 

1. The general designations of experimental materials are chaotic and confusing for the reader. Subsequently, the reader confuses all the markings in the text and loses an overview of the results.

 

2. The formal page does not meet the magazine's requirements (format of tables, line spacing of references...)

 

3. It is necessary to indicate significant values in the tables for a better understanding of the reader.

 

4. Fig. 3 - use more detailed images (I understand that you want to show the preparation process), but since it is a material magazine, it is appropriate to use more detailed images (LOM, SEM).

 

5. I recommend slightly expanding the article to more pages (the main part of the article, without references). Add to the article material research of wear layers.

 

6. Transform the results from tables into graphs. (Faster understanding and better comprehensibility of the results for the reader)

 

7. Use fewer self-citations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I thank the authors for revising the article, but my opinion remains the same. I do not recommend publishing an article in that journal. The article is not focused on material research.