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 manuscript can be accepted in its current form.
-
-
-
No additional comment in the light of previous rounds of review.
Please address the remaining minor points.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors should also consider expanding the sample size or including aging protocols in future work.
Thank you very much for providing the revised version of the article now entitled “Effects of chemical surface pretreatments on the surface roughness and shear bond strength of fiber post-resin cement interfaces: A preliminary in vitro study”. The outline of the article is still correctly structured and contains sufficient background information. Figures and tables are correctly positioned.
The experimental design is correctly outlined. Thank you for reworking the methodology and including additional imaging and roughness assesment of the samples.
Thank you for reworking the discussion section in terms of clinical applicability and different scenarios.
I accept the responses and changes applied for comments 1-7 from previous round of review.
Additional comments:
1. Typo in Table 5 "Ssurface"
2. Figures 5-9 - the scale is not visible. Please rework legend for readability (colour and size).
Please respond to the reviews.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript is generally well-written, but minor grammatical revisions are suggested.
Figures 1–3 are illustrative but lack detailed captions. Include specific dimensions or experimental conditions in the captions.
Table 2 and Table 3 present statistical results clearly, but the p-values in Table 2 could be formatted consistently.
The power analysis is noted (n=10 per group), but the assumed effect size (1 unit) and standard deviation (0.5) should be justified with prior literature or pilot data.
The control group (no pretreatment) is appropriate, but consider clarifying why fibers were exposed during preparation (lines 269–270), as this may confound results.
The horizontal surface testing is innovative but warrants further discussion on how it mimics clinical scenarios compared to traditional top-surface testing.
The use of only one resin cement and post type limits generalizability. Acknowledge this and suggest future studies with multiple materials.
Aging was not included. Address how this affects the interpretation of bond durability.
The cohesive failure mode is noted, but include representative images or descriptive statistics to support this observation.
Thank you very much for providing the review article entitled “Effects of different surface pretreatments on fiber post-resin cement interface shear bond strength: a preliminary in vitro study”. The outline of the article is correctly structured and contains sufficient background information. Figures and tables are correctly positioned.
The experimental design is correctly outlined, but the methodology used is limited. The article would benefit from using more means of mechanical evaluation or imaging of the surface after treatment in terms of roughness or morphological changes - please consider expanding the article, as it only includes evaluation of SBS and optical microscopy.
Conclusions of the article: The findings of the article can be further evaluated for clinical applicability and modulation of SBS during clinical procedures.
1. Table 1 would benefit from a reference to where the material composition was found.
2. Table 2 should include the significance limit of the variable (p).
3. Please include the unit of SBS in Table 3.
4. Please label the items in Figure 1 and Figure 3. Figure 4 is missing the unit of SBS, and the legend is illegible due to the quality of the image - please revise.
5. In the conclusions, the authors state that "chemical surface pretreatments ... show no color change" - please comment on how this was assessed. There was no mention of any colorimetric method used.
6. Please consider including the name of the commercial material evaluated in the abstract.
7. Although light microscopy was mentioned in the methodology and discussion, no image is included in the article - please include relevant figures.
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.