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.
This manuscript can be accepted in this present form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Based on the Reviewer’s comments, minor revisions are still necessary.
[# 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) #]
No comment.
No comment.
In Fig. 1, the XPS spectrum. please check the XPS curve of unsilanized Novaron. It is not clear.
Please check the English throughout the text. For example, line 201, the spelling: "foetal calf serum".
Dear authors,
The quality of the manuscript has improved significantly after the changes. However, some minor revisions are needed to their possible publication.
- “Ag(slilver)-based”: replace for “Ag(silver)-based”.
- “Navaron”: replace for Novaron
- It was not described the irradiance emitted by the light curing unit. Moreover, it was added that increments of 0.2 mm in thickness were used. Why such a fine layer? From a clinical perspective, increments of 2 mm in thickness would be used.
No further comments.
Thank you for submitting your work to the journal. I looking forward to receiving the revised version of this manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review 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/ #]
a. English usage
1. Please check some English usage. For example, Materials, p.8, "Two types of enhanced materials were ....". It should be "Two types of silanized filler materials were ....".
Methods
1. The silanization of both filler particles, ABWs and ZrO2, was not mentioned in the methods. Are you referring the procedure according to your previous study [Zhang et al. 2014b]? if yes, please mention it in the text.
2. The total weight % of the filler particles and Novaron was 64%. Was it difficult to wet enough of the fillers with the resin matrices?
3. How long did it take for the light curing each time?
4. A surface roughness of 0.18 um for biological test and 0.02 um for Vickers hardness tests, why? According to your previous studies?
All raw data are provided. Some comments are given:
1. Please check no SD values are provided.
2. The raw data need more descriptive information. e.g., surface hardness test, there are 9 values measured for each group.
Figures
Represented live/dead images for biofilms on resin disks
1. It is recommended to combine Figs. 5 to 10 into one figure.
The live/dead results of planktonic bacteria in the medium
1. It is recommended to combine Figs. 11 to 16 into one figure.
The MTT results
1. It is recommended to combine Figs. 17 to 22 into one figure.
CFUs results
1. It is recommended to combine Figs. 23 to 28 into one figure.
Other comments
1. p.13, “Representative live/dead images are shown in Fig. 3 for…..”. Please check if it is Fig. 5.
2. p.14, “Fig. 5A (S. mutans), B (F. nucleatum) and C (C. albicans) present the MTT results for the biofilms on the resin surfaces of the Novaron groups, and Fig. 5D-F are….”. Please check the figure numbers.
3. p.14, “……. presented in Fig. 6A (S. mutans), B (F. nucleatum) and C (C. albicans), and the results for the planktonic cells in the culture medium are presented in Fig. 6D-F. The results were the same as the MTT results.”. Please check the figure numbers.
4. p.15, “……. cytotoxicity of resin composites are shown in Fig. 7,……”. Please check the figure numbers
This study evaluated some properties of a silver-containing resin composite. Novaron is a silver-supported antibacterial material with promising inhibit activity, which can be useful in dental restorative materials for preventing secondary caries around restorations. Thus, the results of this study strengthen the body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of Novaron incorporation. However, from a dental perspective, several improvements are needed.
Herein, a list of criticisms and related suggestions is described.
TITLE
The current title does not fully express the objective of the study, since it was not only evaluated the antimicrobial properties, but also the color and mechanical properties. Please, rewrite the title.
ABSTRACT
The abstract does not report all the tests performed in this study. Please, mention that color change was also evaluated and include a brief description of the statistical analysis used.
INTRODUCTION
In general, the introduction is clear and concise. However, I assume that the novelty of the study should be more emphasized. The current introduction does not approach its main topic: Novaron material. For instance, why Novaron is interesting? How Novaron works? Why Novaron should be incorporated in resin composites? What are the advantages of incorporating Novaron compared to other silver-based agents? These questions must be briefly answered through the introduction.
Some minor revisions are addressed below.
Line 71: The term “lower resistance to caries” is not adequate. Please, reformulate the sentence explaining the risk for secondary caries due to microbial invasion and proliferation in the tooth/restoration interface. Add more references if necessary.
Lines 71-72: Please, include a reference that supports this statement.
Lines 80-82: Please, include reference of studies that evaluated resin composites containing antimicrobial agents.
Line 81: Replace “microbial destruction” for “microbial growth/proliferation”.
Line 86: Please, indicate that Ag means silver, since it was mention in the text for the first time.
Line 89-98: This paragraph is confusing for me. I suggest that the authors firstly mention the previous researches using Novaron. After that, the introduction must end with the objective of the study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In my understanding, the authors prepared resin matrices with and without Novaron. From a clinical perspective, why Novaron particles were not incorporated into a commercial resin composite? If it is not possible, would not be interesting to include a control group using a commercial resin composite?
Please, include sample size calculation.
Lines 100-111: To enhance the readability of the paper, I suggest the inclusion of a Table giving detailed information regarding the composition of the resin composites evaluated in the study.
Lines 131-132: Describe how the light-curing was performed in more detail. What light-curing unit was used? The irradiance? Light exposure time?
Line 137: How the specimens were sterilized? Please, describe it.
Line 145: Replace “three kinds” for “three strains”.
Line 201: I suggest the calculation of the Whiteness Index for Dentistry (WID) since it has been widely used in recent studies. WID is a CIELAB-based system, thus the authors can calculate it using CIELAB values previously obtained. Please, have a look at the published paper: Peréz MM et al. Development of a customized whiteness index for dentistry based on CIELAB color space. Dent Mater. 2016;32(3):461-7. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.12.008.
Line 216: Considering the sample size (n = 6), the most adequate normality test would be Shapiro-Wilk. Why the authors did not use that test instead of Kolmogorov-Smirnov?
Please, include statistical significances for Tables 1 and 2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
All the changes suggested in previous sections should be considered for the Results and discussion section.
This study inspires several questions that could be deeply explained through the results and discussion section. Herein, authors should report comments upon only report the obtained results. Moreover, the clinical extrapolation of the results is missing and it is crucial for the dental audience. I suggest rewriting all this section.
FIGURES
Please, include in all figure captions what the asterisks and red lines mean in the charts.
No comments.
No comments.
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.