Accuracy of 3D-Printed Occlusal Devices of Different Volumes Using a Digital Light Processing Printer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is devoted to an interesting topic of the applied use of 3D technologies in medicine. On the whole, the manuscript has been prepared at a fairly high level.

It is possible to recommend the authors to correct some inaccuracies.

Make the numbering of subsections as follows: 2.1, 2.2, etc.

The section “Accuracy evaluation via surface comparison” provides data on the comparative analysis of the accuracy of printed occlusal devices. It would be good to present the characteristics of the measurement accuracy of the used industrial structured light scanner (ATOS III Triple Scan, GOM, Topometric GmbH, Göp-138 pingen, Germany)

Figure 1 contains a respectful color-coded surface comparison. But the decryption of this color-coded is not shown in the figure. Perhaps it would not be superfluous to introduce a scale rule to estimate the size of the mentioned products.

Lines 334-335 have a reference to the study by Reymus et al., but there is no reference in square brackets [x]. It is necessary to refer to the references. In lines 324-325 there is also a reference to the work by Reymus and after it there is reference [17]. But in the references, Reymus' works are numbered as [16]. Apparently here is a mistake.

In figure 2 the text is almost unreadable. It is necessary to increase the size of the text and remove unnecessary legends at the bottom of the figure. The panel with buttons should also be removed from this figure.

Figure 3 is similar to figure 2. The text is very tiny and there are extra buttons at the bottom of the figure.

The section “5 Conclusions” should be significantly expanded to cite the new data that were obtained during the study.

Author Response

Please see attachment, because the figures are not displayed in the box....

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript by number “applsci-1558474” was reviewed:

The introduction needs improvement.

Please add a suitable scale bar for figures.

Results have just been reported, please compare your finding with other researchers.

Please double-check figure 1.

Production process parameters need to report in a table.

Fallowing papers suggesting for introduction and results comparing:

An investigation on energy consumption and part quality of stereolithography apparatus manufactured parts

Tilting separation simulation and theory verification of mask projection stereolithography process

Evaluation of UV post-curing depth for homogenous cross-linking of stereolithography parts

Additive manufacturing techniques for the fabrication of tissue engineering scaffolds: a review

Author Response

please see attachment, because the figures are not displayed in the box

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the authors for correcting the article.
The article is much better in my opinion. The article can be published in this form. From small remarks - it would be nice to add a scale bar in figures 1g and 1h (for example, in the upper left corner).

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewer for the further comment. Now, the figures 1g and 1h also contain a scale bar.

We hope that all comments have been adequately addressed.  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx