Next Article in Journal
Mechanical Performance of Concrete Made with the Addition of Recycled Macro Plastic Fibres
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Non-Thermal Atmospheric Pressure Plasma on Differentiation Potential of Human Deciduous Dental Pulp Fibroblast-like Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental Impact of Discharge Patterns and Ambient Wind on the Jet Discharge from a Mechanical Upper Vent of a Tunnel
Previous Article in Special Issue
Probiotics in Oral Health and Disease: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 21
10.3390/app11219859
Review Report
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

Printed Edition

A printed edition of this Special Issue is available at MDPI Books....
share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Accuracy of Implant Level Intraoral Scanning and Photogrammetry Impression Techniques in a Complete Arch with Angled and Parallel Implants: An In Vitro Study

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(21), 9859; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219859
by Hani Tohme 1,*, Ghida Lawand 2, Rita Eid 3, Khaled E. Ahmed 4, Ziad Salameh 5 and Joseph Makzoume 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(21), 9859; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219859
Submission received: 9 October 2021 / Revised: 15 October 2021 / Accepted: 20 October 2021 / Published: 22 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Techniques, Materials and Technologies in Dentistry)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

" Accuracy of implant level intraoral scanning and photogrammetry impression techniques in a complete arch with angled 3 and parallel implants: An in vitro study

It is very interesting to focus to comparison the accuracy of digital impression techniques (intraoral scanning and photogrammetry) at the level of intraoral scan bodies in terms of angular deviations and 3D discrepancies. However, there are a few corrections that are essential to meet the standard for publication. Please refer to the following comments.

 

1) Table 1 and Fig 7 are duplicated. Please check.

2) What does 24 <14 <22 = 12 in the bottom column of Tables 1 and 2 indicate? Please add a description.

3) Tabel and figure show the same thing, so it's better to unify them.

The table is more detailed and it is desirable to unify here.

4) Please specify the comparison target of Bonferroni multiple comparisons tests in statistical analysis.

5) Illustrating the areas where errors were likely to occur with the DIOS and DPG methods provides useful information to the reader.

Please simplify the results and add more visualization of the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please rephrase the second conclusion because the phrase is too long and unclear.

Congratulations! 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to re-review your revised manuscript.

I am happy that all of the suggested corrections have been made.

Thank you for spending so much time for revised manuscript.

Back to TopTop