Optical Properties of Five Esthetic Ceramic Materials Used for Monolithic Restorations: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

your manuscript summarize a huge amount of experimental work, but I would recommend some changes  to improve further its quality.

With reference to table 1 you should specify the unit in data of composition (wt% - vol% - mol% ?).

Moreover, the measure of the ceramic grain size all the samples is mandatory because of the relevance of this characteristic on the optical properties. Measure before and after sintering (in cerami samples) will allow to take into account the influence of the thermal treatment on this relevant parameter. I would recommend the measure y by linear intercept method ( ASTM E1382 - 97 or ASTM E112 - 96). 

A further point is regarding the presence of alumina in the different materials. In YTZP alumina is an additive to control Low Temperature Degradation (see Lawson, ref 14), but is added in much higher concentration in ENM, likely to improve optical properties. Would you please comment on that in Discusssion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the author evaluate and compare the optical properties of five esthetic ceramic materials used for monolithic restorations. I think that the paper is clear and logical. But some comments should be addressed before acceptance for Materials. My detailed comments are as follows.

1.       Title” Compara- 2 tive, should be Comparative?

2.       The name of five esthetic ceramic materials listed in this paper, were commercial names. It is suggested to use more professional chemical name for each material.

3.       The testing standards foe each condition should be provided.

4.       Figure 2 is of low meaning. Please delete it.

5.       Figure 3, the same as Figure 2. You are suggested to describe these in detail in your experimental sections.

6.       Any testing errors for each testing?

7.       Any possible compare your results listed here with previous published data?

Therefore, I recommend this manuscript be major revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all my concerns. The manuscript is recommended to be accepted as it is.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. They are appreciated.