Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Addition on the Chemical Properties and Biological Activity of Calcium Sulfate Hemihydrate Bone Cement
and Zhaoyang Li 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors tested the effect of PRP on the physicochemical and biological properties of calcium sulfate cement (CSC). Dystematic research of this effect is necessary. But the CSH used in this study had poor setting properties, which cannot completely reflect the real situation when CSC was mixed with PRP. More references should be added to elaborate the difference between the CSH cement in this study and other CSC.
1. CSH often solidify into CSD, leading to a short setting time (5~15 min) and a proper compressive strength. In this study, the author stated the CSH with liquid only underwent the induction period and didn’t form CSD. Why didn’t CSH have a complete hydration? What factors influence the process?
2. The degradation ratio of calcium sulfate cement was lower in this study than other literature? What’ the reason?
3. As the detection limit of XRD was about 5%, XPS data should be added to prove if there formed CSD.
4. The caption of Table 4 was the same as Table 2.
5. In table 6, the reason of strength decrease during cement soaking should be discussed.
6. Some grammar errors occur. Such as in line 549 of Page 17, “…new bone cells on the other” should be “…new bone cells on the other hand”.
The Quality of English Language is good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the article discusses the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a liquid phase in bone cement to improve its chemical and biological properties. The authors found that the addition of PRP increased the injectability of the cement, improved its compressive strength, and prolonged its degradation time. Additionally, PRP was found to promote the mineralization of cells and up-regulate gene expression of osteocalcin and Runx2, as well as protein expression of β-catenin, which are all markers of bone growth and regeneration.
In terms of the strengths of the study, the authors provide clear and concise descriptions of the methods used to prepare and test the bone cement, as well as the results obtained. The inclusion of numerical data and statistical analysis adds to the credibility of the findings. The use of multiple cell lines to evaluate the effects of PRP on bone growth and regeneration is also a notable strength of the study.
In terms of English, the article appears to be well-written and grammatically correct. The language used is technical and scientific in nature, which is appropriate for the subject matter. The authors use clear and concise language to describe their methods and results, and the use of subheadings makes the article easy to navigate.
Overall, the study provides valuable insight into the potential of using PRP to improve the properties of bone cement, and future research could build on these findings to explore its clinical applications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Following are the comments:
1. What is PRP? Please avoid abbreviated terms in title?
2. The abstract is poorly written without mentioning the aim. Also, what was the methodology and the study groups? Conclusion just seems repetition of the results.
3. In introduction, the rationale is not clearly mentioned why there is need to conduct this study.
4. In introduction, hypothesis of your study is missing.
5. In methodology, IRB approval # is not mentioned?
6. The discussion can be further improved. The authors may use the following papers to improve this part:
- Mirza EH, Khan AA, Al-Khureif AA, Saadaldin SA, Mohamed BA, Fareedi F, Khan MM, Alfayez M, Al-Fotawi R, Vallittu PK, Mahmood A. Characterization of osteogenic cells grown over modified graphene-oxide-biostable polymers. Biomedical Materials. 2019 Sep 9;14(6):065004.
- Khan AA, Mirza EH, Mohamed BA, El-Sharawy MA, Hasil Al-Asmari M, Abdullah Al-Khureif A, Ahmad Dar M, Vallittu PK. Static and dynamic mechanical properties of graphene oxide-based bone cementing agents. Journal of Composite Materials. 2019 Jul;53(16):2297-304.
7. Please point out the implications of the findings and their limitations.
8. Please mention future directions.
9. In conclusion, lines 575-578 is redundancy. Please remove
10. Some of the references have missing page range (e.g. #41 and 42). In that case please mention doi.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is ready now for publication
