The Influence of Various Superstructure Materials on Stress Distribution for Implant-Supported Prosthesis: Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear respected Editor,

Dear Authors,

This manuscript aimed to evaluate the stress values exerted on dental implants and surrounding bone when utilizing different dental implant superstructures, which is very interesting subject, however, many other published studies focused on the same topics already,

The manuscript seems well written and structured in good design, I have some comments which I hope the authors will consider revising to further improve the quality of their work,

 

Abstract:

“chrome alloy cobalt” please correct the terminology to cobalt chromium alloy, or based on the glossary of prosthodontic https://www.academyofprosthodontics.org/lib_ap_articles_download/GPT9.pdf

 

From the diameter of the implants I can tell that it is in the posterior region of the mandible, however, please state this in the discussion for example: mandibular posterior three-unit implant-supported prosthesis.

You said here that vertical load was applied, and in the material section you talked about vertical and lateral loads.

“The study confirms the effectiveness of the finite element method in evaluating stress distribution across various materials and load conditions” This is a very strong conclusion and solid statement; I do not know how your study could confirm the effectiveness of finite element analysis. I suggest that you delete this sentence unless you have data in the manuscript that support your assumption.

 

Introduction;

Please pay attention to the sentences structure across all the context, you need to use sound English language. The manuscript language in general is very good, there are some sentences that lack structural integrity.

“In the last few years,……etc” I understand the word few to be 3-5 years, while dental implants have been in the dental field since 1960s. please revise this, may be you meant to say in the last few decades! Or in the last decades!

 

You talked about polymers and hybrid materials in your introduction, while you didn’t apply this materials, please stay focused on monolithic ceramic and Co-Cr alloys.

You talked also about mandibular overderdenture, which mostly utilizes anterior two to four implants, and your designed is fixed-fixed posterior prostheses, please focus more on your topic in the scientific background.

The scientific background is very lengthy, please try to reduce this section and concentrate only on what is directly related to your topic. It has been assumed that the introduction of scientific writing represents 10% of its length so it should be in your case one and a half pages, two pages is also good. I am not authorized to tell you this as a reviewer but a lengthy introduction reduces the interest of the readers in your entire manuscript, especially if the background is not directly related to the topic.

What is new in your study that was not available in previously published papers.

 At the end of the introduction, the objectives are preferable to be written as  “ the aim of this study” or “this study aimed to”

Kindly add null hypotheses

 

Materials and methods

The part of bone construction, implant insertion, and superstructure was short and direct, I couldn’t understand if you meant virtual construction (digital), or if you had physical analog models with real dental implants that were assembled with the superstructure and then captured in digital form and inserted to the program! As you know some use micro CT for data acquisition and transfer to the 3D finite element program, and others use ready digital models that are already installed into the program, you wrote later on that you drew the model. It would be better to write this part with much details and start with it in the construction.

Line 203 the word crowns should be fixed partial denture (FPD) or fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), please do this to the entire manuscript, use the abbreviations

Why didn’t you apply the load in multiple directions (vertical and oblique) and multiple points cusps ridges, fossa, embrasure…..etc. state this in the limitations of the study at te end of the discussion section.

The statistical analysis program, tests and method are missing.

Results

Based on my limited knowledge, the lowest modulus of elasticity material is the best to dissipate stress. Your results indicate the opposite; I hope this was clearly justified in the discussion section.

The statistical analysis was not presented in the result; how did you calculate the results?

 

 

 

 

Discussion

if you added null hypotheses in the introduction, start the discussion section by the aim of the study and the null hypotheses approval or denial.

The discussion in its current form is unacceptable, please refer to previous studies write down what is different in your results and what is the same to the previous published studies, add proper scientific arguments with citations.

The current discussion contains zero citations, please revise, besides the discussion is very short.

Write what is new in your findings that make it different than the previously published papers.

At the end of the discussion write the limitations of your study and recommendations for future research.

 

Conclusions

Please delete conclusion number 6, as it is not a finding of your study and you didn’t compare finite element analysis to another method to come up with this conclusion.

The other conclusions could be joined in two or three points instead of 5 points.

 

Good Luck

Kind Regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English is good, one or two sentences can be rewritten in much sound form for the meaning, Please check the manuscript again for punctuation issues.

Author Response

Greetings

I would like to inform you that all the comments received have been answered and the texts have been modified according to the comments, as highlighted in yellow in the attached file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is very interesting  ideea. The paper is very good for the field of intetes. I think will be better if the conclusion will be shorter and in one or two phrase. I agree to be publised after conclusion revised.

Author Response

Greetings

I would like to inform you that all the comments received have been answered and the texts have been modified according to the comments, as highlighted in yellow in the attached file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I see that you have improved the manuscript. However, the null hypothesis is not in the correct location. It should be at the end of the introduction section, just behind the aim of the study. and the same in the discussion section.

The discussion lacks citations and arguments based on previously published records. It is not only an interpretation of your results. Please revise properly. 

The other comments are better now.

 

Kind regards

Author Response

Greetings..

Thank you for the comments.. The comments have been taken into consideration and the amendments have been made accordingly
Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf