Adaptability Evaluation of Metal-Ceramic Crowns Obtained by Additive and Subtractive Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject matter presented in the paper is interesting. The authors presented interesting studies. Literature analysis is at an acceptable level. The authors refer to current sources. However, the biggest reservations are raised by the quality of the presentation of the results and a number of errors in the composition of the paper. This creates a negative impression despite interesting research.

Below are some detailed comments:

 

- 16th line - a comma after "technologies"

- figure 2 is not clear, it is not known what it is about (descriptions should be added)

- lines 165-167 probably shouldn't be there (description of what should be in a given chapter)

- the sentence on line 175 is incomprehensible

- table captions in table 2 (the symbols a, b, c ... seem to refer to the table below, and refer to those above)

- The main objections are the structure and formal side of the paper. Lots of editing and grammar mistakes. Authors use single-sentence paragraphs many times. The chapter "discussion" looks more like a literature review - there are too few references to research results.

The article seems interesting, but the presentation of the results needs to be improved before publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time, help, and opportunity to improve the quality of our work and research.

I will try to respond to each of your comments. Because of extensive revisions, I will not be able to provide the specific lines in which I made changes. There are too many, it covers almost the entire document. I apologize for that.

- 16th line - a comma after "technologies"

Because of the modifications requested, line 16 is also modified.

Additional grammar and punctuation checking was performed.

- figure 2 is not clear, it is not known what it is about (descriptions should be added)

I changed the figure and completed the caption to be more explicit.

- lines 165-167 probably shouldn't be there (description of what should be in a given chapter)

Lines 165-167 were lines from the template. I deleted them.

- the sentence on line 175 is incomprehensible

All the results part was re-write.

- table captions in table 2 (the symbols a, b, c ... seem to refer to the table below, and refer to those above)

We replaced the table with the processed and combined data. Now all the information is included in table1 and table 2.

- The main objections are the structure and formal side of the paper. Lots of editing and grammar mistakes. Authors use single-sentence paragraphs many times. The chapter "discussion" looks more like a literature review - there are too few references to research results.

The discussion chapter was entirely revised, the unnecessary information was removed, and the correlations between literature and our research was made.

The article seems interesting, but the presentation of the results needs to be improved before publication.

The results chapter was also revised with processed information in tables, their description and statistic results.

I hope I manage to make the desired modifications.

Best regards,

Cristina Savencu

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The assessment of the adaptability of ceramic-fused metal crowns with framework fabricated utilizing additive manufacturing technologies and its comparison to conventional subtractive and traditional methods is the core subject of this manuscript. Evaluation of porcelain firing and its influence on ceramic fit is discussed.

The manuscript is well written except a few minor spelling corrections : for example see below,

page #5 line: 157 optic microscope....optical microscope

page #7 line: 190 reviled.....revealed

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time, help and opportunity to improve the quality of our work and research.

Due to the major revisions report we received, the manuscript suffered a lot of changes.

Besides the shortcomings that you highlighted, we needed to repair others.

Further grammar and punctuation checking were performed.

Thank you again for your kind response,

Best regards, Cristina Savencu.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is not recommended for publication in its present form for the following reasons:

1. The abstract is very general, and there is a lot of irrelevant information. The abstract should be explained and showed the important aspects of work. So, this abstract in the present form is unacceptable.
2. The previous work is very low, and isn't sufficient. It is recommended updated this section with new references, and compared them with your work. 
3. Most importantly, this manuscript lacks of sufficient in-depth analysis and insights to justify publication.
4. The novelty and originality of the material presented in the manuscript is poor and important findings are very low.
5. The overall manuscript is longwinded, containing many unnecessary information, while many key points are missing.
   6. Method of fabrication (SLM, SLS) is not explained (parameters). This subject is very necessary. 
6. The results have not been directly compared and it is difficult to evaluate them.
7. More statistical analysis should been added, for example, the coefficient of variation (CV, standard deviation) of the experimental data should been added and discussed.
8. As the results and discussion in this article, it is better to compare the research result with other similar research result.
9. Most tables and figures have poor quality.
10. Overall English and entire quality of the whole manuscript need to be modified to suit the standard of the journal for publication.

The content of the manuscript and results obtained are at the level of a technical engineering report and not a research paper that could be considered for a journal publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time, help, opportunity to improve the quality of our work and research and for the organized and methodical review.

I will try to answer punctually at each of your remarks. 

Due to extensive revision that was made, I will not be able to respond with page and line number, the entire manuscript was modified.

1. The abstract is very general, and there is a lot of irrelevant information. The abstract should be explained and showed the important aspects of work. So, this abstract in the present form is unacceptable.

We eliminated the irrelevant information and explained more the methods and add information in results chapter.

2. The previous work is very low, and isn't sufficient. It is recommended updated this section with new references, and compared them with your work. 

We updated the references with recently published articles and corelated them with our findings in discussion chapter.

3. Most importantly, this manuscript lacks of sufficient in-depth analysis and insights to justify publication.

We tried to analyze the result further and provide more significant discussions and conclusions.

4. The novelty and originality of the material presented in the manuscript is poor and important findings are very low.

The novelty of the research consists in the analysis of both AM technologies available for dental restorations SLS and SLM with both conventional and CAD/CAM milling technology, using the same standars for fabrication and also for evaluation.

5. The overall manuscript is longwinded, containing many unnecessary information, while many key points are missing. 

We extensively revised the entire manuscript and the unnecessary information was removed and further data analysis was performed.

6.  Method of fabrication (SLM, SLS) is not explained (parameters). This subject is very necessary. 

 

The parameters of production are described in Mateials and Methods:

"Twenty-four frameworks were fabricated by Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) (PXS Dental, Phenix Systems, Riom, France) using cobalt-chromium dental alloy powder (Starbond CoS Powder 16, S&S Sheftner GmbH, Mainz, Germany). The powder layer was of 30 µm, with a compaction rate of 30%, in the controlled atmosphere of N2 with a gas flow of 5l/minute, using a Class 1 laser with a wavelength of 1070nm and 50W power.

From that one, twenty-four anatomic copings were fabricated using Cobalt-Chromium bonding alloy for the manufacturing of removable and fixed restorations by Selective Laser Melting (SLM) using same powder used for SLS copings (Starbond CoS Powder 30, S&S Sheftner GmbH, Mainz, Germany) free of beryllium and nickel. Laser power was 80W, powder layer 20 μm, under protected N2 atmosphere < 0.3 l/minute, using Mysint 100 (Sisma, Piovene Rocchette, Italy)

Relief-firing was performed for SLS and SLM copings (Figure 6): they were heated to 450° within 60 minutes, hold for 45 minutes, heated to 800°C within 45 minutes, held for 60 minutes, with slow cooling, under nitrogen atmosphere.

SLS and SLM frameworks were placed on the building platform with the occlusal face parallel with and towards the plate and the post-processing step was performed with the copings still attached to the plate."

Are other parameters which should be further described?

6'. The results have not been directly compared and it is difficult to evaluate them.

The results have been compared and re-write.

7. More statistical analysis should been added, for example, the coefficient of variation (CV, standard deviation) of the experimental data should been added and discussed.

The statistical analysis has been redone, with results compared in tables and described in the results chapter.

8. As the results and discussion in this article, it is better to compare the research result with other similar research result.

With the enrichment of the references, the results were compared with other research results and investigation methods.

9. Most tables and figures have poor quality.

 

We improved the resolution of figures and replace figure 2 which was not sufficiently explicite. Also, we changed the tables from raw processed ones.

 

10. Overall English and entire quality of the whole manuscript need to be modified to suit the standard of the journal for publication.

The new form of the manuscript was checked for grammar and punctuation errors.

 

I hope I manage to respond to all requests and made the desired modifications.

Thank you again for your time and meticulous response.

Best regards,

Cristina Savencu

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version of paper „Adaptability evaluation of metal-ceramic crowns obtained by additive and subtractive technologies" is well improved and is ready to publish.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and effort to help us to improve our work.

The manuscript was subjected to an English proofing process, and I hope we managed to address all the errors in the text. 

Thank you for your consideration!

Sincerely,

Cristina Elena Savencu