Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract of the paper presents the aim, methodology, main results and conclusion of the study. The applied biodatabase techniques and the use of different materials are briefly summarized. Appropriate key words are used. The only thing missing is a clear indication of the significance of the study for clinical practice, which could additionally increase its information value. The introduction is well-structured, guiding the reader through the current challenges related to indirect restorations in dentistry, justifying the need to study the influence of biobases on the accuracy of marginal fit. The authors discuss previous studies and introduce the concept of biobase according to the biomimetic protocol. The importance of fibrous materials (Ribbond, EverX) is explained in detail and supported by the literature.

The methodology is exceptionally detailed, allowing for full replication of the study. The following were taken into account: selection and preparation of samples, methods of application of different types of biobases, digital process of designing and milling of the reconstruction, standardized measurements of marginal gaps before and after cementation, use of digital microscopy and ImageJ software. Appropriate statistical test (ANOVA, t-test) was used, and the ethics of the study were described in an appropriate manner.

The results are presented clearly, with a division into pre- and post-cementation data. Table 1 shows: means and standard deviations, and the results of the Student's t-test and ANOVA. Illustrations (e.g. Figures 1–3) showing tooth preparation techniques and measurement methods are also used. Everything is logically arranged, but the graphical analysis could be enriched with bar graphs showing the comparison of groups, which would improve the visual interpretation of the data.

The discussion is solid and comprehensive. The results are compared with previous studies, possible reasons for the lack of differences between groups are explained, factors influencing the accuracy of adhesion (material, design, milling technique) are identified, and limitations of the study are highlighted (lack of simulation of oral conditions). The discussion therefore presents a good understanding of the topic and its clinical significance.

The conclusions are consistent with the results: the use of biobases (including those reinforced with fibers) does not negatively affect marginal adhesion. Potential benefits for the mechanical strength of the restoration are highlighted. The only lack is a more decisive call for further clinical studies.

The bibliography is extensive, up-to-date, and includes key publications in the field of biomaterials, conservative dentistry, and CAD/CAM technology. It includes both meta-analyses and experimental studies, which indicates a good review of the literature.

The article is a very well written and conducted in vitro study. All sections are thoroughly developed and the methodology is of a high standard. The presentation of data is clear, although the graphical representation could be expanded.

Recommendations: Add comparative results graphs for better visual presentation. Expand the summary to include future directions for clinical research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Influence of Different Fiber-Reinforced Biobases on the Marginal Adaptation of Lithium Disilicate Overlay Restorations (A Comparative in Vitro Study)" is well-structured, methodologically sound, and highly interesting for clinicians. The study addresses an important topic with clear practical relevance. I commend the authors for their efforts. However, I would like to suggest a few minor improvements to enhance the clarity, consistency, and overall impact of the paper:

Introduction Section:

I recommend slightly revising the end of the Introduction to more clearly articulate the study’s rationale, objective, and the specific research gap being addressed. Presenting these elements in clear and straightforward language will help readers better understand the purpose and significance of the work. A concise “take-home message” at the end of the Introduction would further strengthen this section.

 

Clinical Implications:

To emphasize the clinical relevance of the findings, it would be beneficial to add a short subheading under the Discussion or Conclusion section titled "Clinical Implications of the Current Research." This would help practitioners better appreciate how the results can be applied in clinical settings.

Typographical Errors and Figure Citations:

There are a few minor typographical errors throughout the manuscript, and some inconsistency in the way figures are cited (e.g., "Fig. 1" in some places and "Figure 2" in others). A thorough proofreading is recommended to correct typographical errors and to ensure consistent figure citation style according to the journal's guidelines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the work is well-organized and technically sound. However, several minor revisions are needed, and some aspects require further clarification.

1. How were the Ribbond fibers integrated within the 1-mm composite layer while maintaining a consistent thickness across samples? Have the authors standardized the amount of fiber used in each specimen?
2. What was the length of the fibers? Were any steps taken to control fiber orientation, considering that the reinforcing effect may depend on fiber alignment, which could influence local stiffness and potentially bias marginal adaptation outcomes?
3. The current design uses eight measurement points per tooth (two per surface), which may be insufficient to capture the complete marginal variation, especially in curved or beveled regions. The authors should consider increasing the number of measurement points or provide justification for how the current point distribution adequately represents overall marginal adaptation.
4. Please standardize all units consistently throughout the manuscript. For example, on page 5, lines 139–141, “3s,” “15 seconds,” and “15 s” appear inconsistently.
5. In Section 2.5, the software used for statistical analysis should be clearly indicated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx