Investigation into Effect of Natural Shellac on the Bonding Strength of Magnesium Substituted Hydroxyapatite Coatings Developed on Ti6Al4V Substrates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the submitted article concerns the current scope of searching for new materials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, it is not suitable for publication.

This work is written in a very incomprehensible language. There is such chaos in the experimental part that it is difficult to understand what the authors were doing. Material characterization based only on one SEM image and XRD analysis is unacceptable in a scientific journal.Conclusions drawn on the basis of the chaotically presented results are insignificant and do not add anything to the current state of knowledge.Moreover, authors should adhere to the requirements and style of the journal.

Taking into account the above, I believe that the work in its current form is not suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and canbe accepted for publication after minor changes.

In particular, a more detailed description of potential clinical application of such materials in nowadays clinical activity has to be better defined.

So the following suggestions are strongly recommended to accept the paper:

Authors should discuss the potential role of hydroxyapatite substitutes in surgical procedures to improve bone volume prior to implant placement (PubMed ID 23057028; PubMed ID

20192859; PubMed ID21599829), even if such biomaterial can bring to an improvement of torque insertion of dental implants (PubMed ID 25876078).

Moreover, for the Authors it’s mandatory to propose the use of such biomaterial when applied to digital dentistry techniques (PubMed ID31664999; PubMed ID30769768), or in patient undergoing diagnosis of head and neck tumors (PubMed ID19821124).

In the end, it’s very important to point out the use of such materials in combination with stem cells (PubMed ID32811413), in patients with extreme bone atrophy (PubMed ID31140209), improving the quality of oral hygiene (PubMed ID28696070).

In the end, Authors shoud hypothesize the use of such biomaterial in combination with implant with an innovative double conical connection (PubMed ID26922985; DOI10.3390/ma13051029) to obtain a bone level maintenance over time (PubMed ID24683572)

 

 

After these changes the paper can be acceptable for publications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The present study reports the article entitled “Influence of natural shellac on Bonding strength of magnesium substituted hydroxyapatite coatings developed on Ti6Al4V substrates” and to make this paper publishable, the author need to consider below comments.

Title

I think title need to be improved; why “substituted” word? It looks “Mg-doped” or “Mg-incorporated” is more relevant. Or using Investigation instead of Influence, etc.

Abstract

-What is 13% w/w in the Abstract? (as well in other sections)

Using “non-toxic” and “non-corrosive” words is so ambitious; in compare with what? “stable” in which field? The last sentence of abstract should show the results more clearly, not like this.

Introduction

-The sentence “the naturally formed bio-apatite … strontium, copper, etc.” needs 2-3 references.

-Please move the “Various methods have… have been used” to the previous paragraph. The last paragraph is only your work and a connection between abstract and conclusion.

Materials and methods

-Figure 1 is clear, but need to shod the coating process schematically too, encompassing initiation, particle growth… coating drying and final product (your Fig. 1).

-How the variants in Table 1 are chosen? Why higher dipping time or lower shellac concentrations are not applied? (e.g. 60s or 6%, respectively)

-Where is composition of Mg-Ha and Ti6Al4V? they have many grades.

Result and discussion

-In Figure 2, I don’t recognize the Mg (I see only HA)! why didn’t show by arrow in micrograph? How you proof the “uniform distribution of Mg-doped HA”? Do we need to see EDS mapping?

-What is your reference for section 3.3 and Table 2? (As well, you need to mention suitable references for sections 2.1-2.6 whenever it’s needed; for this kind of study, 26 Refs are less).  

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been revised in line with the Reviewers' suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

The raised comments are appropriately answered in revised version.