Accuracy of 3D-Printed Master Cast Workflow Using a Digital Light Processing Printer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presented Accuracy of 3D-printed master cast workflow using a digital light processing printer. It can be considered for acceptance if the authors can address the following issues.

The abstract is not written in a standard way. Delete ‘(1) Background’, (2) Methods, (3) Results, (4) Conclusions.

Figure quality needs improvement, Fig.1 could add a scale bar, Fig. 2d the legend is not clear, so is the legend in Fig. 3d.

The conclusions section is too simple.  Please improve it by summarizing more concluding remarks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There is no conclusive proof in the referenced papers that in the digital workflow, a prelliminary proximal and occlusal check on printed models improves the overall intraoral adaptation time

The significance of the full-arch accuracy of intraoral scans or 3d printed models should be discussed in the context of the clinical goal (diagnostic or antagonist models or working casts for different types or restorations

As the presence of several preparations and large retentive areas have a decisive influence on the resulted accuracy for the conventional workflow, either the reference model should have been designed accordingly- mimicking for example a complete arch antagonist with moderate retentive areas or the parameters related to the presence of the preparations should have been taken into account – inter-preparation distances, preparation margins, preparation surfaces used as a reference for the model superposition and not via the global best-fit alignement method used for the present protocol.

There is no statistical data except for the figure to prove that the amount in wich the intermolar distance error from the intraoral scanning is compensated by 3d printing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is very valuable about the prosthetic rehabilitations. The positive results show the printed cast by DLP 3D printing method could have high precision than traditional method. I recommend this work be published after answering a few questions.

 

1. How about the accuracy of the other 3D printing method, such as the mentioned DLP, SLS or SLA? Is there some reference about these methods?
2. There is less information about the DLP 3D printing process, what is the used parameters, such as the layer thickness, the used acrylic resin. The information is important for the repeated experiments.
3. The result show positive precision about the DLP 3D printed casts. How the about the cost of the DLP 3D printing route, time and expense?
4. Is there some drawback about the printed cast?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The study compared the printed casts obtained from a DLP printer with the conventionally fabricated casts in terms of arch trueness and precision. The topic can make the application prospect of 3D printing in stomatology clearer. Some minor issues should be addressed.

• This in-vitro study was designed to investigate whether conventionally produced casts and printed casts for prosthodontic work show comparable full-arch accuracy.

――It’s the study purpose rather than the background.

• There are letters with unknown meanings in the abstract, such as n, α. This is not standardized in academic writing.
• The author doesn't seem to understand the basic usage of punctuation in English writing. For example, To save time during try-in at the patient multiple proximal and occlusal contacts can be checked on real casts extraorally.

――Missing comma in the sentence.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx