Bioactive Agrocomposite for Tissue Engineering and Bone Regeneration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is study utilizing sugar waste that can be used together with the commercially available medical grade LOCTITE as an orthopedic implant coating that presents improved adhesion and oseeointegration. Major issues with the study include:

1. The generation of the sugar waste is not provided in detail. It is industry specific and will create bottlenecks if other groups attempt to replicate. Much more rigorous analysis of the sugar waste is needed at the absolute minimum.

2. Statisitcal analysis of the presented data is problematic. Error bars are missing limiting the conclusion value.

3. The use of primary bone cells or adult stem cells instead of the cells used here is preferable as it will allow beyond the proliferation to address more involved aspects of mineralization that may show hints of osseointegration.

Overall this is a poorly designed study.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

①　The experimental design did not support the topic well, and the experimental process was too simple. Bioactive composites are used for tissue engineering and bone regeneration. Biodegradability, bioactivi, osteoinductivity and corresponding mechanical properties were insufficient.

②　The Materials and Methods section and Results and discussion section should be clearly written. The Results and discussion should be analyzed and discussed in detail, and compared with relevant literature.

③　How can the formation of composite materials be proven?

④　Adding error bars to the cell experiment figures.

⑤　How can the perfect adhesion of both PEI-U1010 and Ti5 implants be demonstrated? Are there specific data available?

⑥　During the material synthesis process, BBC refers to Biphasic Bioceramic, but what does bcc stand for? Is it a typographical error? 

It is recommended to address the above issues and some errors, and to conduct a more rigorous data analysis, considering major modifications before publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor editing

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: inventions-3048513
Type of manuscript: Communication
Title: Bioactive Agrocomposite for Tissue Engineering and Bone Regeneration

Even though the submission is a form of communication, many places need to be strengthened and revised, and the adhesion strength is crucial in this process.

For example, abstract:

Method: Once obtained, the wording should be more academic; please revise.

Introduction:  lines 53-58- The general term for TCP is tricalcium phosphate with the chemical formula Ca₃(PO₄)₂. Please supply the mentioned formula and correct it in all manuscripts.

Lines 63-68 The composition of Carbocal shown here doesn't match Table 1; specifically, HA and TCP are not listed in Table 1.

Mater & Method

Based on Table 1, I recommend rewriting the introduction to bioceramics.

Lines 117-125: It is recommended that Table 1 be referred to in the list of ingredients of LOCTITE@M31 and BBC. I think BBC powder is more critical when referring to raw materials, and it should be recommended to refer to Table 1 to list the ingredients.

Results and discussions

Due to the submission of bio-related fields, statistical results should be provided in Figures.

Lines 255-259: Adhesion testing is of primary interest in this manuscript, and the results revealed here are ambiguous and should be expanded to address significance and progress.

 

 

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your comments. 

Comments 1: Even though the submission is a form of communication, many places need to be strengthened and revised, and the adhesion strength is crucial in this process. For example, abstract: Method: Once obtained,… the wording should be more academic; please revise.

Response 1: The wording has been modified in order to be more academic.

Comments 2: Introduction:  lines 53-58- The general term for TCP is tricalcium phosphate with the chemical formula Ca₃(PO₄)₂. Please supply the mentioned formula and correct it in all manuscripts.

Response 2: The term has been modified and reviewed the entire manuscript.

Comments 3: Lines 63-68 The composition of Carbocal shown here doesn't match Table 1; specifically, HA and TCP are not listed in Table 1.

Response 3: Composition of Carbocal has been modified in lines 63-68 in order to match Table 1. However, Table 1 just shows Carbocal composition; HA and TCP are not compounds of Carbocal.

Comments 4: Mater & Method. Based on Table 1, I recommend rewriting the introduction to bioceramics. Lines 117-125: It is recommended that Table 1 be referred to in the list of ingredients of LOCTITE@M31 and BBC. I think BBC powder is more critical when referring to raw materials, and it should be recommended to refer to Table 1 to list the ingredients.

Response 4: As said in previous comments, Table 1 just shows Carbocal composition. BBC is the product obtained after hydrothermal phosphatization of Carbocal. LOCTITE@M31 is a medical grade epoxy. Both, BBC and epoxy have been mixed to obtained a biomaterial for the priming of metallic or non-metallic implantable surfaces, as we explain in the introduction last paragraph.

Comments 5: Results and discussions. Due to the submission of bio-related fields, statistical results should be provided in Figures.

Response 5: Statistical results are now showed in Figures.

Comments 6: Lines 255-259: Adhesion testing is of primary interest in this manuscript, and the results revealed here are ambiguous and should be expanded to address significance and progress.

Response 6: Information about adhesion test has been expanded and references have been added.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' responses are not adequate to elevate the study to an acceptable level for publication. At this point the original concerns remain and the paper is not acceptable. The only improvement is the addition of error bars that is concerning as it is unclear how they were missed in the original submission of they already existed. I remain in my original evaluation.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors' responses are not adequate to elevate the study to an acceptable level for publication. At this point the original concerns remain and the paper is not acceptable. The only improvement is the addition of error bars that is concerning as it is unclear how they were missed in the original submission of they already existed. I remain in my original evaluation.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We invite you to consider the reviewed version of the manuscript. We have revised English language, expanded the information on the adhsesion test, added information on the statistical analysis and clarified the information on the composition and origin of Carbocal. We hope this will reach the required level. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The novelty of the study is that hydroxyapatite comes from a byproduct of the sugar industry. There is indeed potential for further research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing

Author Response

Comments 1: The novelty of the study is that hydroxyapatite comes from a byproduct of the sugar industry. There is indeed potential for further research.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been reviewed for English language issues. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the manuscript has been greatly improved based on the reviewers' suggestions, I recommend that it is acceptable in its current state.