All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Dr. Zhu,
The manuscript was significantly improved and could be accepted for publication, congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Pedro Silva, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have well addressed my comments and questions. The paper can be accepted for publication.
The authors have well addressed my comments and questions. The paper can be accepted for publication.
The authors have well addressed my comments and questions. The paper can be accepted for publication.
The revised manuscript has addressed most the comments and suggestions by the reviewers, thus, the reviewer recommends publication of current manuscript.
No comment
No comment
Please provide answers to reviewers' comments and apply necessary changes to the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The study investigated the effects of mesoporous bioactive glass (MBG) on odontogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells. This work expands the applications of MBG to dental applications, and the results show the potential of MBG in dental pulp damage repair and regeneration. In my opinion, this paper could be accepted for publication in PeerJ after some issues are addressed. Here below are the specific comments:
Introduction
1. Line 49, the authors stated, “… the particles can be prepared into mesoporous materials with more uniform particle size, smaller pore size, and better dispersion by using sol-gel method combined with organic template technology.” Here the definition of MBG should be clarified. Actually, not all MBG have uniform particle size and better dispersion. Only these MBG produced under certain conditions have a uniform spherical shape and favorable dispersity (Ref. Porous bioactive glass micro- and nanospheres with controlled morphology: developments, properties and emerging biomedical applications, Mater. Horizons. 8 (2021) 300–335.). The authors should clarify this.
Methods
2. Section: 2.2 Physicochemical properties of MBG: The composition of 45S5 Bioglass and their particle size should be given. Also, why did the authors compare 45S5 Bioglass and MBG in terms of their pH and ion release behavior? The authors should clarify it.
3. Line 105 “The remaining solid bioglass powder was removed” here “bioglass” should be “MBG” if I understand correctly.
4. “MBG induced the formation of dental pulp dentine complex in rats”. I suggest that the authors could use a schematic to describe the process of in vivo study to help readers understand the procedure.
Results and discussion
5. Table 1, why the concentration of P decreased in MBG group compared to the control?
6. Line 241, “Traditional silicate glass has a complete network structure formed by -Si-O-Si- bridge oxygen bonds, which is relatively stable[13]. CTAB is introduced into the system to interrupt the covalent network structure, changing the -Si-O-Si- bridge oxygen bond into a non-bridging oxygen bond -Si-O-M+ (M+ is the modified cation), forming a partially open grid structure[14, 15].” Here the explanation was wrong. CTAB did not change the -Si-O-Si- bridge oxygen bond into a non-bridging oxygen bond -Si-O-M+ (M+ is the modified cation). The incorporated Ca changed it in your case.
7. Line 258, “ In this study, the effect of MBG on pH increase was significantly weaker than that of 45S5, suggesting that MBG has better biocompatibility with tissues and less influence on the growth of pulp cells in vivo.” It is not clear to me why the authors compared MBG with 45S5 Bioglass? Has 45S5 been used clinically? If in this case, I suggest that the authors should also compare MBG with 45S5 in cell and animal studies.
In this manuscript, the authors reported that MBG could induce the odontogenic differentiation of dental pulp cells and the formation of pulp dentin complex. This study provides a potential application of MBG that repairing and regenerating for dental tissue injurie. However, several points need to be clarified.
1. The information of reagents, materials and instruments that mentioned in this manuscript should be supplied, such as manufacturer, code and country.
2. The identification for hPDCs should be provide.
3. Table 2, the mean and standard deviation of ion concentration of MBG extract should be considered,
4. The author mentioned that MBG has a large specific surface area, therefore the specific surface area and mesoporous size should be measured.
5. The Figure 3 cannot support the author’s finding, like mineralized matrix with dentin tubule structure, and the residual MBG particles can’t be observed in the Figure 3. The author should provide more evidence to support the correctness of results.
no comment
no comment
no comment
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.