A Facile Synthesis of P(VDF-TrFE)-Coated-PMMA Janus Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting manuscript about a facile synthesis of P(VDF-TrFE)-coated-PMMA Janus membranes for guided bone regeneration

 

Comments and suggestions:

Abstract

1. Full name for P(VDF-TrFE) and PMMA

2. Please include the method for coating.

 

Results and discussion

1. Capital letters for Figure 1, Figure 4 and Figure 5 in the text.

 

References

1.      Format for the title Ref. [7-10, 12-15, 18, 27]

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The figures are small especially 1d where the authors claimed needle like structure and whiskers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript dealing with  the guided bone regeneration topic by Luo et al. is short study on  cell growth behavior of polymeric membrane. 

The manuscript is rather low quality, there is just short introduction showing some relevance to topic. Materials and methods of preparation are presented in insufficient way, the understanding and possible reproducibility is difficult.

1.Characterization methods are insufficient. 

e.g. field emission scanning (FE-SEM, Hitachi SU-70).... conditions of the measurement

 The crystal phase structure of P(VDF-TrFE) coatings was analyzed by X-ray diffractometer (PANalytical X'Pert PRO) for the for the 2θ range of 15-50°.... no source of the lamp, arrangement or conditions of pattern given

The infrared spectrometer (Nicolet 5700) ....conditions of the measurement, range

2. many abbreviation should be explained e.g.MSCs+PRP.... should be explained,

3. Results and discussion

characterization discussion is insufficient, many statements without given data and values are provided without further explanation

e.g.the degree of crystallization.... must be given some values, calculation of ratio amorphous-crystalline phase, 

Generally full XRD analysis useless in this state.

SEM analysis ,poor, e.g. The morphology of P(VDF-TrFE) coating recrystallized on n-Si substrate (PVDF-N1) possess fewer whiskers, as shown in figure 1e .... should be explained , because it is totally different from 2 other.

 

Conclusion are relevant and not supported. 

 

1. The tight combination of P(VDF-TrFE) coating and PMMA film were formed as the bonding strength was about 185 kPa. .... WHY?

 

2. P(VDF-TrFE) coating as Janus-A, and its electrical property was regulated by taking various crystallization methods.....NOT PROVEN AND NO VALUES GIVEN

 3. NIH3T3 cellular response on Janus-A and Janus-B was differentiated, and higher  surface potential among samples displayed potential in new bone tissue formation with MSCs and BMDMs inoculated on them. SHOULD BE PROVEN BY OTHER OBSERVATION

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript reports the fabrication of a double-layered membrane to be used for guided bone regeneration.

In my opinion, this manuscript can not be considered publishable according to the following revisions:

- Please check English grammar and typos throughout the manuscript

- The abstract must be enriched with important details. At the moment, it is not descriptive of the content

- Please the authors to expand the introduction, with a deepen review of the scientific literature. Especially on the guided bone regeneration.

- Please revise the description of the fabrication methods. They are not sufficiently detailed to be reproducible. and check for errors, that sometimes make the manuscript hardly interpretable 

- Which kind of statistical analysis has been performed by the authors? Please report all the details.

- In the discussion, please report values with the standard deviation.

- Figure 1. In the caption, please reports the type of substrates.

- Figure 5. It is hard to find differences, while graphs show there are differences. Please revise this part.

- In the Conclusion section, a mention of the possible impact of the research must be underlined.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The review by authors was preformed carefully , I agree with revision. Several points I would have solve different way , as crystallinity expression . However this is authors decision. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors replied to my comments, even if there are still some points to be cleared:

- The authors stated "the bonding of them is tight" in the abstract. Which are the references in the literature to declare the tightness? A discussion and comparison must be reported. Please also add a picture to understand how the test has been performed.

- In the methods, no references are reported about the mechanical characterization (e.g., analysis of the Young's modulus). Please revise all Materials and Methods section again, to avoid missing important details for the reproducibility of your results

- Please revise the statistical analysis. For example, Figure 2c does not show any analysis while it could be present a statistical difference among samples. In addition, which is the reason why the authors chose the Scheffe's post hoc test, with respect to other methods (e.g. Sidak)? it has a low statistical power. Please also justify this choice "And Dunnett’s T3 test was utilized when the variance was not inhomogeneous." 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx