Effectiveness of Silicon Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Autologous Bone on Bone Regeneration in Rabbit Calvarian Defects: A Radiological and Histological Study
, Dubraska Suárez-Vega 4, Gladys Velazco 5, Ivan Rodriguez Gelfenstein 2, Celia Vázquez-Pachón 2, María-Ángeles Serrera-Figallo 2 and Daniel Torres-Lagares 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This original study aims to evaluate the role of silicon in bone regeneration through an animal model (rabbit).
Regarding the use of silica in bone regeneration, there are still not many publications.
The article in general is well written, the protocol is sufficiently detailed and does not deserve much criticism.
The only issues to be pointed out are the reduced number of specimens (5) and the reduced evaluation time (3 weeks). It is possible that with a larger sample and longer evaluation time the results would be different.
Although the study was well conducted, significance of content is low. Authors should continue and expand this study.
Author Response
Concern of the Reviewer #1:
“This original study aims to evaluate the role of silicon in bone regeneration through an animal model (rabbit).
Regarding the use of silica in bone regeneration, there are still not many publications.
The article in general is well written, the protocol is sufficiently detailed and does not deserve much criticism.
The only issues to be pointed out are the reduced number of specimens (5) and the reduced evaluation time (3 weeks). It is possible that with a larger sample and longer evaluation time the results would be different.
Although the study was well conducted, significance of content is low. Authors should continue and expand this study.”
Reply to Reviewer 1
Our response: Thank you for your suggestions. We are fully aware that the number of the sample is low and would have wished it were higher. On the other hand, the second part of the study was going to be carried out for a longer period (6 weeks) before the pandemic. Unfortunately, this was not possible and both factors are considered limitations of the study.
Revised text: not applicable.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Although this manuscript is of high originality and can be of interest to the readers, but the the content and the quality of the presentation can be improved. The results section should be modified to exacatly reflect the study.
Author Response
Concern of the Reviewer #2:
“Although this manuscript is of high originality and can be of interest to the readers, but the the content and the quality of the presentation can be improved. The results section should be modified to exacatly reflect the study.”
Reply to Reviewer #2:
Our response:
Thank you for you appreciated suggestions. Several modifications have been made to improve the quality of the content and, therefore, enhance the understanding of the study.
Revised text:
- Figure 1 has been modified to give a better perspective of the analyzed zone, as can be seen on page 4.
- On Results section, an extended explanation of A and B images has been added and to Figure 3 (page 5).
- Tables 1-3 show a clearer presentation.
- Figure 4 was added for a better comprehension of the results
- Figure 5 has been improved with new close-up of the photos and extended explanations. We are deeply sorry for the quality of image 5A and 5B since it represents a mosaic of all the images that form the bigger image, so we thought a close-up could be more understandable.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
