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.
All remaining concerns of the reviewers were adequately addressed and revised manuscript is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sonia Oliveira, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please revise line 134 to 138 and please make a last improvement on the English language.
No comment
1. Please revise again the sentence from line 134-138.
No comment
No additional comments
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
Dear author
Please address point to point reviewers comments to improve your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language should be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
1. This manuscript needs revision to improve its quality.
2. The English language should be improved in grammar and writing style. I suggest the authors to send this manuscript for proofreading.
3. The introduction section needs more detail. I suggest the authors to discuss about fracture strength and fracture modes of the previous studies.
4. Please provide citations if necessary for example, the description in lines 80-87.
5. The study aim in the last paragraph of the introduction section is different from the aim you mentioned in the abstract. I suggest you to revise again this section to make it clearer for the audience.
1. In your methods, you mentioned that ‘written consent was obtained from eligible patients whose maxillary central incisors were planned to be extracted ….’, (lines 116-117) but in your study design on the next page, you were using mandibular premolars (line 121-122) as your samples. In the early statement of your abstract (line 24), you mentioned in the method section that you used mandibular first premolar as your sample. I suggest you to standardize the term that you use for your samples in this manuscript.
2. Why did you choose mandibular first premolar instead of maxillary central incisors?
3. How did you calculate the sample size? And how the 60 teeth were distributed among the 6 groups?
4. Who performed the RCT and who prepared the samples for this study? Did you send the samples to the dental technician or lab for preparation? If yes, how did you control this?
5. In line 201, you mentioned that ‘metal copings were prepared from Co-Cr metal alloy powder’, what is the purpose of preparing this metal coping? Did you mean the metal crown?
6. For the fracture mode test, it would be better if you could provide photos/images to show the fracture modes 1-5. It will provide a better illustration to the audience.
7. Please change the term study design to sample preparation or maybe you can make another subheading for sample preparation.
1. It would be better if the result of failure mode could be presented using photos/images instead of put in a table. Please discuss in detail the fracture modes in your discussion. For example, why did you choose stereomicroscope instead of scanning electron microscope?
2. I suggest you to improve in the discussion part. Please discuss more on your results.
3. You can state the limitations and clinical applicability of your study in the discussion. It is highly recommended.
No additional comments
The English language of the article needs improvement. I have made a few comments in the PDF, but it requires overall language enhancement. Additionally, more literature review is necessary, few relevant articles were not included.
The research question is well-defined. However, the author did not specify the number of experimental repetitions. It is unclear how many times the experiment was conducted or how the groups were statistically compared. Additional information on experimental repetitions and statistical analysis methods would enhance the clarity and reproducibility of the study.
The author did not mention how their work differs from that of others. It is unclear what the novelty of their research is. Additionally, the conclusions drawn in the abstract differ from those in the article. Clarifying the unique contributions of the study and ensuring consistency between the abstract and article conclusions would strengthen the quality.
More work is needed to improve the quality of the article.
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.