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.
The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments and improved the clarity of the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The article was improved considerably to be published.
It is clear now.
It is clear now.
Please note the pertinent points raised by three reviewers, especially on the research methodology for bleaching.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Language:
Clear, professional English
language used throughout
Introduction is adequate with justification of study and gap statement.
Literature is well referenced & relevant.
Material and methods:
Line 168, please clarify …..’as described above in Section 2.3’
Line 120-124.......would be nice to mention how much of demineralizing solution needed (in mL) for each sample.
Figures and tables are clearly labelled and illustrated.
Hypotheses Hypotheses is appropriate and being answered accordingly
Sufficient details have been provided in methods for replication
Hypotheses have been answered.
Discussion has been tailored to the result. However the discussion on the material used ‘ICON’ containing TEDGMA can be elaborated further and its susceptibility to staining would give added value to the reader.
Conclusion is appropriate
Hanin E. Yeslam et al study the time-dependent effect of coffee and bleaching on the color of resin-infiltrate enamel WSL. The article meets generally the journal standard, but there are some suggested improvements listed in the following session. The main problem of this manuscript is there are many apparent errors in figures and figure legends. Please proof read it carefully before re-submitting.
The experimental design is good, but there are some questions and suggestions for the results session.
1. In Table 1, the SD values for the test and control surface are very large compared to the mean values. For example, the SD of the test baseline is 3.62 and the mean value is 7.16, so the coefficient of variance is above 50%.
Furthermore, the color of the exposed surface was measured using CIE L*a*b* color, but the L* scale in CIE coordinate is 0 to 100. Please explain why some of the L values in table 1 are below zero?
2. Figure 3. Please check the change of L value on Day 8. The test change should be -8.03 (-0.87-7.16), and the control change should be -6.19 (0.49-6.68).
3. Please show the raw data of bleaching color change in the main text or figure. Currently, only the L* change of bleaching is in table 3.
1. Please keep notation consistent. In the Methods section, the enamel surface change of color is delta Ex, but in the main text and figure is delta E.
2. Please use a high-resolution picture for figure 1.
3. Please add error bars to Figures 2 and 3.
4. Couple changes on figure legend: Figure 1: Remove table 1.
The article needs English review, because it is difficult to understand the text.
The idea was not adequately justified in the introduction with the literature.
Author did not explain why they use just 8 days of staining. I don't think it is enough time to stain and then do bleaching treatment. In addition, authors did not present sufficient literature to support it.
Bleaching treatment was performed once for 40 minutes, and literature indicates to perform three applications of 40 minutes to complete a bleaching treatment.
For all the points made so far, I don't think the article is ready to be published.
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.