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.
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.
Dear Editor,
I have reviewed the modified version of the manuscript “3D- printed resin for permanent/definitive restorations: Meta-analysis for Bond Strength”. You can read the significant changes in the modified version of the manuscript. The authors have improved several sections of the manuscript. An improvement can be noted in the discussion of the results.
The structure and content of the information has been improved.
The authors clearly state the meta-data analysis procedures used for the manuscript.
In this section, the authors made no significant changes. The experimental procedures (procedures for obtaining and analyzing the meta-data used) are well explained and presented.
The experimental procedure proposed by the authors is adequate to answer the research question of the manuscript.
In this manuscript, the authors perform a literature review by meta-analysis of 3-D bond-strength resins for permanent or definitive restorations.
The databases consulted are relevant and reliable for the information the authors present and base the conclusions of this review.
I have no further comment on this manuscript
The pointed corrections were properly addressed, ensuring an overall improvement of the document.
The methodology was adequately described
A detailed comparison of the bond strength was included, enriching the analysis.
The review identifies several challenges that necessitate significant revisions. Both reviewers concur that a comparison of the bond strength values should be incorporated.
Several sentences in the manuscript need to be improved by the authors. They have been pointed out (yellow color) in the manuscript.
Some sentences require the use of an article (for example, line 60).
The authors describe clealy the methods used in this manuscript.
a) The authors have performed the literature review, and in the results section, it can be noted that they make a very brief description in the subsections (Study selection, Manufacturing methods, and study materials, Specimen design and preparation, Postprocessing protocols, Surface treatments and bonding protocols, Thermocycling protocols, Bond strength, and Failure analysis and main findings).
b) On the other hand, the Discussion section is very general for the most part. It was expected that the subsections in the results part would be approached and analyzed from a more in-depth and analytical point of view. In addition, the authors do not discuss the properties and effects of surface treatments, postprocessing protocols, bond strength, etc. Most of the discussion is very superficial and not deep.
c) I strongly suggest that the author revise and re-write some statements. Several sentences in this section are very general (observations) and do not provide a conclusion. My suggestion is: The conclusion section provides an objective analysis of the results the evidence from the literature supports the statements.
Reviewer's report.
Reviewers report
ID manuscript: 11637-v0
Title: 3D printed resin for permanent/deûnitive restorations: Metaanalysis for Bond Strength
Comments and observations:
Several sentences in the manuscript need to be improved by the authors. They have been pointed out (yellow color) in the manuscript.
It is suggested that the word “3D-printed” be placed.
Some parts of written sentences should be placed more directly to improve the understanding of the concepts that the authors wish to express, which have been pointed out in yellow in the manuscript.
Some sentences require the use of an article (for example, line 60).
Lines 71 to 76. Polymeric resins include additives (antioxidants, stabilizers, pigments, etc., etc.) in their formulations. These additives can migrate, but this point is not considered in this manuscript.
In the same sense, to improve the adhesion of fillers into the polymeric resin, some adhesion promoters are used; however, these promoters can migrate out to the compound and would be harmful.
Latin words must be written in cursive, e.g., “in vitro”
The authors have performed the literature review, and in the results section, it can be noted that they make a very brief description in the subsections (Study selection, Manufacturing methods, and study materials, Specimen design and preparation, Postprocessing protocols, Surface treatments and bonding protocols, Thermocycling protocols, Bond strength, and Failure analysis and main findings).
On the other hand, the Discussion section is very general for the most part. It was expected that the subsections in the results part would be approached and analyzed from a more in-depth and analytical point of view. In addition, the authors do not discuss the properties and effects of surface treatments, postprocessing protocols, bond strength, etc. Most of the discussion is very superficial and not deep.
I strongly suggest that the author revise and re-write some statements. Several sentences in this section are very general (observations) and do not provide a conclusion. My suggestion is: The conclusion section provides an objective analysis of the results the evidence from the literature supports the statements.
Although AI is a tool for editing information in a review, it does not reach the capacity of human reasoning to analyze the information. It is recommended that authors revise the manuscript and limit the use of AI to manuscript refinement and spell-checking.
In the References section, it can be observed that several references are not spelled correctly; they have been marked in yellow color.
Note: I have enclosed the manuscript reviewed with my observations.
No comment
The article defines the objective of the meta-analysis as synthesizing current knowledge on the adhesion of 3D-printed restorations; however, it does not formulate a research question
The results section addresses various aspects of the methodology; however, it does not present bond strength values. It is recommended to include these values and compare them across similar methodologies.
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.