Next Article in Journal
Multi-Class Transfer Learning and Domain Selection for Cross-Subject EEG Classification
Next Article in Special Issue
Bioactive Glasses for Soft and Hard Tissue Healing Applications—A Short Review
Previous Article in Journal
Electromyographic Activity of the Pectoralis Major Muscle during Traditional Bench Press and Other Variants of Pectoral Exercises: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Structure Defects and Photovoltaic Properties of TiO2:ZnO/CuO Solar Cells Prepared by Reactive DC Magnetron Sputtering
 
 
Communication
Peer-Review Record

The Modification of Titanium Surface by Decomposition of Tannic Acid Coating

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(8), 5204; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13085204
by Beata Kaczmarek-Szczepańska 1,*, Lidia Zasada 1, Marta Michalska-Sionkowska 2, Jithin Vishnu 3 and Geetha Manivasagam 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(8), 5204; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13085204
Submission received: 26 February 2023 / Revised: 12 April 2023 / Accepted: 20 April 2023 / Published: 21 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Surface Science and Thin Films)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript No: applsci-2264939

Journal: Applied Sciences

Title:    The modification of titanium surface by decomposition of tannic acid coating

In the paper, the authors report a study to investigate the modification of titanium surface by decomposition of tannic acid coating. In general, the topic is timely and of high interest in the field of in implantology research. My specific comments in order to improve the manuscript are given as follows:

 1)     It would be better if the authors provide a graphical abstract for the manuscript.

 2)    The abstract should be concise and accurately summarizes the essential information. It should be ‎rewritten to summarize the work; briefly state the purpose of the ‎research, the principal results, and major conclusions.

33)    The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed in the Abstract and also in the Introduction section.

 4)     In the Introduction section, the number of cited references should be enhanced and more up-to-date references need to be addressed. Literature survey can be improved related with discussion on the past studies on the topic, importance of the modification of the titanium surface by tanning acid coating, analysis techniques,other  kind of materials. Research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work.  Aim of the this study should be given in detail.

 5)     It would be better to discuss the  cytotoxic effects of using the titanium surfaces and  tannic acid coating. This would maket he paper more beneficial to readers and valuable. For emphasizing the importance of these phenomena, the following references would be helpful for readers' understanding the importance of the titanium modification, the analysis methods, and the cytotoxicity:

Materials. 2022; 15(15):5109. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15155109.

J. Appl. Biomat.Funct. Mater. 2022; 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/22808000221076325.

 6)     More in-depth discussion is needed on the obtained results. 

 7)     The conclusions section is too short and improving the Conclusions section with the addition of obtained results and future perspectives is highly recommended. At the end of conclusion section, please point out the future research plan to solve the limitation of the study conducted.

 8)     A language revision is recommended in order to improve the manuscript quality. 

 

In my opinion, the manuscript could be revised  taking into account the above comments,  before consideration for publication in Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

 

In the paper, the authors report a study to investigate the modification of titanium surface by decomposition of tannic acid coating. In general, the topic is timely and of high interest in the field of in implantology research. My specific comments in order to improve the manuscript are given as follows:

  • It would be better if the authors provide a graphical abstract for the manuscript.

 

As suggested by the reviewer, a graphical abstract has been prepared.

 

  • The abstract should be concise and accurately summarizes the essential information. It should be ‎rewritten to summarize the work; briefly state the purpose of the ‎research, the principal results, and major conclusions.

 

 

 

 

As suggested, the abstract has been modified and summarized as given below:

 

Titanium is one of the most widely used metals in implantology owing to its reduced modulus, improved corrosion resistance and good biocompatibility. In spite of its excellent biocompatibility,  it does not exhibit inherent antibacterial and antioxidant activity. Tannic acid is natural compound which exhibits excellent antibacterial, antioxidant and antimutagenic activity. Development of tannic acid based coatings on the titanium surface holds great potential to reduce the risks associated with implant applications. In the present study, tannic acid was deposited on the titanium surface and the surface displayed a slightly improved hydrophilic character with increase in surface energy. The release kinetics of tannic acid from titanium surface was analyzed and it showed an initial burst effect followed by a gradual decrease over time. Hemolysis tests revealed the erythrocyte compatibility of the developed surfaces. The improved hydrophilicity, observed release kinetics of tannic acid and reduced hemolysis rates revealed the potential of this facile technique for implant applications.

 

  • The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed in the Abstract and also in the Introduction section.

 

Abstract has been improved. We hope it is acceptable.

 

 4)     In the Introduction section, the number of cited references should be enhanced and more up-to-date references need to be addressed. Literature survey can be improved related with discussion on the past studies on the topic, importance of the modification of the titanium surface by tanning acid coating, analysis techniques, other  kind of materials. Research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work.  Aim of the this study should be given in detail.

 

Manuscript is now improved. We hope that the present version is acceptable.

 

 5)     It would be better to discuss the  cytotoxic effects of using the titanium surfaces and  tannic acid coating. This would make the paper more beneficial to readers and valuable. For emphasizing the importance of these phenomena, the following references would be helpful for readers' understanding the importance of the titanium modification, the analysis methods, and the cytotoxicity:

Materials. 2022; 15(15):5109. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15155109.

  1. Appl. Biomat.Funct. Mater. 2022; 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/22808000221076325.

 

Thank you very much for the comment. It is now included in the paper.

 

 6)     More in-depth discussion is needed on the obtained results. 

 

The discussion section has been elaborated in the revised manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 7)     The conclusions section is too short and improving the Conclusions section with the addition of obtained results and future perspectives is highly recommended. At the end of conclusion section, please point out the future research plan to solve the limitation of the study conducted.

 

 

As recommended by the reviewer, conclusion section has been updated with more details pertaining to obtained results and future perspectives.

 

 

 8)     A language revision is recommended in order to improve the manuscript quality. 

 

The revision of language was done.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting study on the titanium coated with tannic acid on their surface. I have several issues before it can be recommended to be published. 

1) Introduction must be improved and include more detailed description of problem.

2) Results part needs to be also enhanced. Figure 1 requires scale. Figure 2 colors would be useful. Description of results should be more detailed.

3) Discussion must be also improve and provide more detailed discussion of the obtained results with comparison to previous studies.

Overall, extensive editing is necessary before I can recommend it to be published.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

 

1) Introduction must be improved and include more detailed description of problem.

 

Thank you very much. It is improved.

 

2) Results part needs to be also enhanced. Figure 1 requires scale. Figure 2 colors would be useful. Description of results should be more detailed.

 

Thank you for the comment. It is now added.

 

3) Discussion must be also improve and provide more detailed discussion of the obtained results with comparison to previous studies.

 

The discussion section has been elaborated in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted paper examines the properties of tannic acid coated on titanium surfaces for implants. However, another research group has already examined the coating of tannic acid on titanium surfaces. It is difficult to understand what part is novel and significant in this paper. Since it is important, I would appreciate your additions on it.

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

 

The submitted paper examines the properties of tannic acid coated on titanium surfaces for implants. However, another research group has already examined the coating of tannic acid on titanium surfaces. It is difficult to understand what part is novel and significant in this paper. Since it is important, I would appreciate your additions on it.

 

Thank you very much for the comment. We underlined in the aim of the study that the novelty of our paper is the new method of tannic acid coating obtainment on the titanium surface. We hope it is now acceptable.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revised the manuscript according to the reviewers's recommendations.

However, there seems a confusion on some reference citations and reference numbering. For example, Discussion Section on page 7, line 246-5-246:

"It was reported by Cheng et  al. [21]...."

Cheng et  al. [21]. was cited as Reference [21], however in the References, Reference [21] corresponds to Ozdemir and Kopac:

21. Ozdemir, O.; Kopac, T. Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of root canal sealers: A review on recent studies. J. App. Biomaterials 335 Func. Mater. 2022, doi: 10.1177/22808000221076325.

I think this reference (Ozdemir and Kopac) should be corrected as Reference No 23 ?? This needs a careful checking and correcting. Please do a proper check on References.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comment. It is now corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors revised manuscript in accordance with comments. However, the references still should be updated to follow the modified manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comment. References are added.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have confirmed that the authors have made the mostly appropriate revisions to the remarks made by the reviewers.

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The revisions have been done accordingly. I recommend the publication in its present form.

Back to TopTop