In Vitro Effects of Cyclic Dislodgement on Retentive Properties of Various Titanium-Based Dental Implant Overdentures Attachment System

Reviewer #1

General Comments

The topic is interesting and important to warrant publication. The paper is written well, properly organized, and easy to follow. The information is presented in an open-minded and objective manner. However, the following minor concerns have to be revised before publication.

Response to General Comments

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the interest and in-depth review with valuable and helpful comments for improvement of the manuscript.

Minor Concerns

Abstract- Please, add the No. of specimens for each group (n = 10).

Response to Minor Concerns1

We have now stated the number of specimens for each group (n = 10) in the abstract.

Minor Concerns2

Introduction- The first sentence starts with the word- “recently”- overdentures on implants with attachment system were introduced long time ago and not recently. Please change the beginning of the sentence.

Response to Minor Concerns2

Thank you and we also agree that the use of IOD may not be that recent. We have deleted the word and revised the sentence.

Minor Concerns3

Introduction- The Null Hypotheses are not clear- rewrite them

Response to Minor Concerns3

Thank you for your comments. We now have modified the null hypotheses that would be more suitable for this study.

Minor Concerns 4

Results- In “3.1. Retention force of specimens”- Line 4 starts with the number “3” –It is probably a mistake Results- In “3.2. Surface morphology”- Line 3 “(Fig. 4c)” should be- “(Fig. 4C)”

Response 4

Thank you for corrections. We have now revised mistyping and also corrected the figure numbering/alphabet to Fig. 4C.

Minor Concerns 5

M & M- You kept the testing solution and specimens at (37 ± 2) °C.

Clinically, this temperature does not simulate oral environment since in the mouth there are different temperatures. Why you did not use thermo-cycling between water temperatures of 5° C and 55° C? An explanation is needed. In the discussion, you mentioned another study that used different temperatures and its influenced on the nylon of the attachment but there was no explanation why in the current study it was not used. Besides the explanation, it should be added in the study limitations as well.

Response 5

Thank you for comments. We agree that the thermo-cycling would provide more clinically relevant results. However, it would be difficult to have cyclic insertion-removal along with cyclic temperature changes. Hence, we considered technical environment of 37 °C. Still, as correctly suggested, this would be a limitation. Hence, now Discussion has been revised to add details about thermo-cycling (including some previous results) as well as stating the limitation of this study.

Minor Concerns6

The order of all sections in the manuscript is not in accordance with the Journal specifications- ‘Materials & Methods’ should be after the ‘Discussion’ section.

Response 6

Although we agree that some papers in Materials have been formatted in the way that reviewer has suggested, we have noted that this was not the case in the every journal. Also, we used the template provided by the journal which was in the order that is presented. We would like to have Materials and Methods first as it would be a logical sequence in terms of naming the attachment systems we used for this study followed by results of them.

Minor Concerns 7

Please change accordingly Rewrite the references according to the Journal requirements.

For example, Reference No 3. and 31.- the journal name should be after the title. Also, reference No. 25 and No. 36- There is no Journal name at all. Please, correct all the references.

Response 7

All of references were now revisited and revised. Thank you for your comments.

Minor Concerns 8

Please make a revision of the manuscript by English language editing.

Response 8

The entire document has now been proofread by professional English editing service EDITAGE. 

Reviewer #2

General Comments

Your study is very interesting, overdenture is a really current topic in dentistry.

And could be interesting to know which is the most predictable method.

Response to General Comments

We appreciate the valuable feedback and appreciation for the research work.

Minor Concern1

Please subdivide introduction section into 2 subsection for a easy reading (background and aim)

Response to Minor Concern1

Thank you for your comments. Now the introduction part has been amended as per the suggestions.

Minor Concerns 2

In keyword section please use Medical subject Headings: https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov

Response 2

Keywords are now in accordance to Medical subject Headings

Minor Concerns3

In M&M section please specify degrees of cyclic insertion and disinsertion of the box on attachments.

Response3

We now have added specific information throughout the document.

Minor Concerns 4

In discussion section please refer to bioengineering previous study on osstem implant too: 10.2174/1874210601812010219; 10.3390/biomedicines7010012; 10.3390/ma12111763

Response 4

As per the suggestions, the discussion section has been modified to include

reference on view of the two articles suggested.

Minor Concerns 5

Please introduce an "abbreviation" section.

Response 5

As suggested by the reviewer, we have included the abbreviation section in the Table 1.