Surface Modification of Biomedical Titanium Alloy: Micromorphology, Microstructure Evolution and Biomedical Applications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Surface modification of biomedical titanium alloy: Micromorphology, microstructure evolution and biomedical applications" describes various surface modification techniques of titanium alloys for biomedical applications for improving osseointegration and biocompatibility. In the review are summarized surface modification methods such as plasma spraying, ion implantation, micro-arc oxidation, laser surface modification, sol-gel and friction stir processing.
The authors search for a large number of literary sources, but the paper requires additional processing and polishing to be acceptable for publication. The article contains a large number of errors and is generally difficult to read and in some parts is poorly written.
Some of the main objections are the following:
1. The paper states the facts taken from various literary sources without any explanation or criticism.
2. Images taken from other literary sources often contain labels (for example, arrows) that authors did not pay attention to, and they are not necessarily required in this review article.
3. It is difficult to link certain parts of the paper with the figures because they are not well explained enough.
4. Abbreviations are mentioned without their additional explanation, which should stand at the place of the first appearance of the abbreviation.
5. The text of the paper contains many spelling mistakes in the case of writing large and lower-case letters.
6. In some places, parts of the sentences are missing.
7. The mark of literature references must be moved away from the text by leaving one blank space, and if it is not the end of the sentence, the point should not be at the back of the bracket.
8. Some figures in the paper are not enough quality in terms of resolution.
9. The references are incorrectly stated when downloading the images from another source.
10. In more places the marks of chemical compounds wrongly written.
11. The same literary source is repeated twice in the reference list.
12. Inconsistently quoted literatures in the reference list.
13. The general conclusion is given, even for a review article.
A detailed overview of all comments is given in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
(Reviewer 1)
Reviewer Comments:
The manuscript entitled "Surface modification of biomedical titanium alloy: Micromorphology, microstructure evolution and biomedical applications" describes various surface modification techniques of titanium alloys for biomedical applications for improving osseointegration and biocompatibility. In the review are summarized surface modification methods such as plasma spraying, ion implantation, micro-arc oxidation, laser surface modification, sol-gel and friction stir processing.
The authors search for a large number of literary sources, but the paper requires additional processing and polishing to be acceptable for publication. The article contains a large number of errors and is generally difficult to read and in some parts is poorly written.
Some of the main objections are the following:
1. The paper states the facts taken from various literary sources without any explanation or criticism.
2. Images taken from other literary sources often contain labels (for example, arrows) that authors did not pay attention to, and they are not necessarily required in this review article.
3. It is difficult to link certain parts of the paper with the figures because they are not well explained enough.
4. Abbreviations are mentioned without their additional explanation, which should stand at the place of the first appearance of the abbreviation.
5. The text of the paper contains many spelling mistakes in the case of writing large and lower-case letters.
6. In some places, parts of the sentences are missing.
7. The mark of literature references must be moved away from the text by leaving one blank space, and if it is not the end of the sentence, the point should not be at the back of the bracket.
8. Some figures in the paper are not enough quality in terms of resolution.
9. The references are incorrectly stated when downloading the images from another source.
10. In more places the marks of chemical compounds wrongly written.
11. The same literary source is repeated twice in the reference list.
12. Inconsistently quoted literatures in the reference list.
13. The general conclusion is given, even for a review article.
A detailed overview of all comments is given in the attachment.
Response:
1. The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comments and recommendations, and we made a summary for each technologies and point out the promising research directions at the end each part.
2. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and we delete the labels that are not related to this article. Also, some labels are annotated in some pictures.
3. We are very sorry for our unclear report in some sections and the inappropriate expression was revised.
4. According to comments, all abbreviations appearing at first time in this article were given full explanation. Line-94: 0.2(Cu(l)-MAO) and 2(Cu(h)-MAO) mM CuSO4·5H2O; Line-144: hydroxyapatite (HA); line-298: aser energy density (LED).
5. According to comments, we have checked every sentences carefully, and all mistakes were revised.
6. It is our negligence and we are sorry about this, and the miss sentences have been supplemented.
7. According to reviewer’s comment and formant requirements, we unified the format of the full text.
8. The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comments and we have revised some pictures in picture quality.
9. The references are incorrectly stated when downloading the images from another source.
10. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments, and all chemical compounds were checked and revised.
11. It is our negligence and we are sorry about this. The corrected literary source was added.
12. According to reviewer’s comment and formant requirements, we give consistent reference columns on the basic of format requirements of periodicals.
[1]. Kurtz, S.; Mowat, F.; Ong, K. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through
2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007, 89, 780-785.
[2]. F, Barrère.; Mahmood, T. A.; Groot, K. D. Advanced biomaterials for skeletal tissue regeneration: Instructive and smart functions. Mater. Sci.
Eng., R. 2008, 59, 38-71.
…
13. As the reviewer’s good advice, we gave a general conclusion in this article.
Some modification details are in PDF or in the most recent version of the manuscript. Special thanks to reviewer’s good comment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Line-31: Don't need three references, one is enough for the statement.
Line-36: After full stop write about some information from this paper (doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00072)
Figure-1: Need a high-quality resolution.
Figure-2: Need a high-quality resolution
Check these references again (3, 6, 8, many more) see the attached PDF with comments.
Suggested papers and highlighted sentences are very important to improve.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
(Reviewer 2)
Reviewer Comments:
Dear Authors
Line-31: Don't need three references, one is enough for the statement.
Line-36: After full stop write about some information from this paper (doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00072)
Figure-1: Need a high-quality resolution.
Figure-2: Need a high-quality resolution
Check these references again (3, 6, 8, many more) see the attached PDF with comments.
Suggested papers and highlighted sentences are very important to improve.
Response:
The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The references in line-28 has been corrected, “[1-3]”→“[3]”, and we give consistent reference columns on the basic of format requirements of periodicals. Also, we have revised some pictures in picture quality and labeling.
According to reviewer’s advices, some information has been added and inappropriate expression has been revised.
Line-37: “In addition, biological responses of titanium alloy implants, such as bioactivity and osseointegration, are positive for clinical application [10]”
[10] Shariq, N.; Zohaib, K BDS.; Sana, Z BDS.; Muhammad, S.Z BDS. Bioactivity and Osseointegration of PEEK Are Inferior to Those of Titanium: A Systematic Review. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2016, 42, 512-516.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In abstract, you should describe the contents in your review. Introduction is too long in your abstract.
Please add more explanation for each figure in figure caption.
Please summarize the advantage and disadvantage for each surface modification technique.
Generally, more concrete descriptions are desirable for the efficacy of each modification technique. For example, you mentioned that low-cost, high efficiency, high bonding strength between the MAO coating and the substrate ‘page 2, line 53-54). But I do not know how much the cost of MAO is. How much is the bond strength value?
Regarding plasma spraying, you mentioned that surface roughness is unaltered after application of the HA coating (page 5, line 144). This is not true. Surface roughness was changed after plasma-spray coating. Plasma-spraying has some problems such as insufficient bonding to substrate materials, crack formation inside thick coatings. Thus, thin coating using some PVD method such as magnetron sputtering or ion beam dynamic mixing have been introduced. Please check such PVD coatings.
What is LC in page 10, line 281? Laser cladding?
Author Response
(Reviewer 3)
Reviewer Comments:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In abstract, you should describe the contents in your review. Introduction is too long in your abstract.
Please add more explanation for each figure in figure caption.
Please summarize the advantage and disadvantage for each surface modification technique.
Generally, more concrete descriptions are desirable for the efficacy of each modification technique. For example, you mentioned that low-cost, high efficiency, high bonding strength between the MAO coating and the substrate ‘page 2, line 53-54). But I do not know how much the cost of MAO is. How much is the bond strength value?
Response: According the reviewer’s good advice, the abstract have been improved. Also, we add more explanation in some figures. In fact, we did not introduce the advantages and disadvantages of each technology separately, but it is reflected in the article. For example, page8-234,”The main advantages are that it can control accuracy and features of implant surface while being high efficiency, pollution-free and low material consumption.” To be honest, this expression is not very accurate, but it’s hard to give a exact value. Actually, there are a lot of facts would affect these values. In this article, these values are meaningful only when compared with other technologies.
Regarding plasma spraying, you mentioned that surface roughness is unaltered after application of the HA coating (page 5, line 144). This is not true. Surface roughness was changed after plasma-spray coating. Plasma-spraying has some problems such as insufficient bonding to substrate materials, crack formation inside thick coatings. Thus, thin coating using some PVD method such as magnetron sputtering or ion beam dynamic mixing have been introduced. Please check such PVD coatings.
Response: It’s our negligence and we are sorry about that. We want to express the CP-Ti coating roughness is invariant when coated with HA coating. According to your advices, related errors have been corrected. In fact, PVD method is an effect way to produce thin coating, but uniformity and accuracy of coatings are difficult to control. In addition, the ion implantation is more effective and easy to control for titanium alloy surface modification.
What is LC in page 10, line 281? Laser cladding?
Response: Yes, LC means laser cladding. We have add the full name.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors, compliments for the work done. The article is well set up and the topic is interesting, well analyzed and presented. The bibliography is vary and up-to-date.
Some minor corrections are necessary, regarding several misprints. It is also suggested a revision of the English grammar and lexicon.
Author Response
(Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors, compliments for the work done. The article is well set up and the topic is interesting, well analyzed and presented. The bibliography is vary and up-to-date.
Some minor corrections are necessary, regarding several misprints. It is also suggested a revision of the English grammar and lexicon.
Response: Thank you for your affirmation and excellent advices. The English has been improved and some mistakes have been corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
In order to improve the quality of manuscript, the following changes are suggested:
1. Line number 191: wrongly written number (0, 0.2).
2. Line number 260: “…backscattered electron imaging (BEI)…“ replace with “…electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD)…”
3. Line number 314: leave one blank space (…implantation(IBII)…)
4. Line number 568: leave one blank space (…cladding(LC)…)
5. Line numbers 576, 578, 584, 650, 677: The mark of literature references must be moved away from the text by leaving one blank space.
6. Line numbers 693, 694: abbreviation “HAP” replace with “HA”
7. Line number 829: What does the abbreviation “S.” mean?
Author Response
(Reviewer 1)
In order to improve the quality of manuscript, the following changes are suggested:
1. Line number 191: wrongly written number (0, 0.2).
2. Line number 260: “…backscattered electron imaging (BEI)…“ replace with “…electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD)…”
3. Line number 314: leave one blank space (…implantation(IBII)…)
4. Line number 568: leave one blank space (…cladding(LC)…)
5. Line numbers 576, 578, 584, 650, 677: The mark of literature references must be moved away from the text by leaving one blank space.
6. Line numbers 693, 694: abbreviation “HAP” replace with “HA”
7. Line number 829: What does the abbreviation “S.” mean?
Response:
Dear reviewers:
Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. As the reviewer’s good advice, related content have been improved. The main corrections are as following:
1. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing and the inappropriate part has been revised.
2. According to comment, “backscattered electron imaging (BEI)” has been replaced by “electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD)”.
3 .4.5. The Incorrect format has been corrected and we try our best to check the relevant errors in the manuscript and correct them.
6.As review’s good advice, the “HAP” as been replaced by “HA”.
7. The abbreviation “S.” means “staphylococcus”, and it was given full explanation at the place of the first appearance in this article.
We appreciate for reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
With best wishes
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author
Please go through with minor English check. Well done.
Author Response
(Reviewer 2)
Please go through with minor English check. Well done.
Response:
Dear reviewers:
Thank you for your affirmation and constructive suggestions. This comment is very helpful and meaningful for our work, as well as the important guiding significance to our daily researches. As the reviewer’s good advice, we have checked each sentences and the English has been further improved. Once again, thank you very much for your work, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
With best wishes
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
