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.
Thank you for revising you manuscript and making all the suggested changes.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Glynn Gould, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing - especially in the Abstract where there are some grammatical errors and excessive use of abbreviations. Therefore, if you can identify further edits, please work with our production group to address them while in proof stage #]
Your article will be accepted following minor corrections. Please make the editorial corrections as suggested in the attached edited copy of the manuscript.
1. Most of the changes have been implemented.
2. Slight correction required in a line in discussion which has been edited by me in the file.
3. Commercial spelling wrong in the legend for graphs at 3 places.
All corrections have been implemented.
1. In the end, significant 'p value' of post hoc Tukey test should be written.
Article can be accepted after these minor corrections.
Please remove the first sentence from the Discussion section. The reviewers have requested further information be included about the statistics in the methods and results sections.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# 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/ #]
Please expand more on the introduction of why it is important to conduct this study and in particular, why is dimensional changes important and what implication can it be lead to if it is not achieved.
Statement of the problem and justification of study need to be enhanced in introduction section. Why use 1% sodium hypoclorite in this study (and what other solutions is used commonly)
ok
ok
number of whole sample size should be included and written clearly
Line 108 n=10 is refering to which group?
Line 123, to add statistical significance
Why do you choose 30 mins to check for dimensional stability - add reference or justify
Line 145- Remove add discussion here
Line 147- correct quoting of referencing
1.Few grammar mistakes are there. I have highlighted them and added questions as per the sticky notes in the content of manuscript where there is doubt.
2. Authors are requested to go through all the highlighted content and make corrections. ADA specifications number needs to be added.
3. Clarify that you are testing for final impressions for fixed prosthesis in your material & Methods.
4. Post hoc tukey test table is missing.
1. Explain four figure balance briefly.
2. How was polymerisation of specimens checked.
3. Mention being an in vitro study in Material & Methods.
4. Tables to be included of multiple comparisons. That's vital and needs to be cited in text later.
Nicely written except for few changes in grammar that have been highlighted.
2. Legends under the figure needs to be corrected.
The submitted manuscript reports experimental data on impression materials treated with sodium hypochlorite disinfection, a very interesting topic, especially during these times.
However, some flaws do not allow me to give a green light for acceptance, but changes are required to improve the quality of the manuscript, to make it more appealing, readable and therefore to contribute fully to clinicians’ practice.
Let’s start from the abstract:
1) It would be better to specify in the methods what You did and what You used: Rodhasurf indeed it is not specified for example.
2) In results, Extrude should be with capitol letter and DW should be specified before when You name distilled water
Introduction
Line 57: of impression is repeated
Lines 84-88: literature reference is missing
Methods
Line 108: eighty sample (n 10) numbers does not match, or it seems confusing to the reader. Please rephrase it clearly
Lines 115-120: the paragraph must be rewritten due to the presence of several grammar and punctuation errors
Statistics: have You checked the distribution before to perform the ANOVA?
Results: it would be nice to add the microphotographs of the sample
Discussion
Line 145: add Your discussion here must be deleted.
Lines 154-155: the sentence must be rewritten due to the presence of several grammar and punctuation errors
Line 162-166: the paragraph must be rewritten due to the presence of several grammar and punctuation errors
Line 174: the full stop should be placed after the round bracket and after “et al”
The methods are appropriate and well described, and adequate details are provided to replicate the work.
In the discussion, the most important part of the article, its core, some very important concepts are mentioned but not fully and properly discussed.
Indeed, an accurate impression means an accurate prosthetic rehabilitation (I might suggest this article to stress out this concept Traini, Tonino et al. “Esthetic outcome of an immediately placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implant restored with a custom-made zirconia-ceramic abutment and crown: a staged treatment.” Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany: 1985) vol. 42,2 (2011): 103-8.)
Another concept that instead totally lacks is the role of the innovation technology, from the reproducibility performance to the digital format in achieving the ideal “material and methods” to realize the most precise prosthetic rehabilitation (I might suggest these articles to stress out this concept Varvara, G et al. “Comparative surface detail reproduction for elastomeric impression materials: Study on reproducibility performance.” Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents vol. 35,1 (2021): 161-169. doi:10.23812/20-561-A, Turkyilmaz, Ilser et al. “Guest Commentary: The Battle of File Formats from Intraoral Optical Scanners.” The International journal of prosthodontics vol. 33,4 (2020): 369-371. doi:10.11607/ijp.2020.4.gc).
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.