In Vitro Evaluation of the Strength of Dentin Replacement in Complex Posterior Tooth Restoration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After critically reviewing this Research Article titled "In vitro Evaluation of the Strength of Dentin Replacement in Complex Posterior Tooth Restoration", I detected some MINOR flaws, which determined my recommendation of “ACCEPT UNDER REVIEW”. Below please find my detailed comments.

The authors evaluated the tensile strength differences in the complex restoration of posterior teeth with dentin replacement constructed by fiber and non-fiber materials.

The study is well written and conducted, with well-described methodology, with minor flaws and easily corrected and appropriate for the objectives of the work. Statistical analyzes of the results obtained were well conducted.

The results obtained were very promising and the discussions were relevant to the results achieved.

1)     Authors should describe how the sample size calculation was performed, which software was used and the result obtained.

2)     I strongly suggest that the authors draw a picture demonstrating the cavity preparation performed, and add it to Material and Methods (page 2, line 72).

3)     Figure 5, which demonstrates the various types of fractures that occurred in each of the groups, clearly has statistical differences, the data should be placed in the figure and discussed in this part of the text and also in the discussion.

4)     The limitation described in the discussion about not having carried out thermocycling was the only one mentioned, I would like to know if there were any other limitations, and if so, describe them in the discussion.

The conclusions of the article are consistent with the results obtained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

This study explores the tensile strength differences in the complex restoration of molars with dentin replacement constructed by fiber and non-fiber materials. The results indicate that the addition of fiber in dentin replacement do not affect the tensile strength in the complex restoration.

Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and well referenced. However, this study shows specific weakness which should be addressed.

·       ·   It is a balanced ANOVA design? (specify if the number of teeth is equal for all treatment combinations).

·       ·   Nothing about statistical assumptions for the ANOVA application were mentioned: independence of observations, variance homogeneity, distribution (normality). Providing information about statistical assumptions is useful for readers to determine what test was performed and confirm that the test is appropriate.

·    ·   When reporting the results of a one-way ANOVA, the following general structure must be used:

o   A brief description of the independent and dependent variables. It is helpful to present a descriptive statistics table that shows the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and 95% Confidence Interval of values in each treatment group as well to give the reader a more complete picture of the data.

o   Report the F-statistic, degrees of freedom and the corresponding p-value.

o   Specify if a post-hoc test was performed. If applicable, specify the type of post-hoc test and, the test statistic and p-value.

o   If applicable, to focus on the magnitude of the difference, it is strongly recommended to report effect sizes with confidence intervals.

*·       It is necessary to add a legend on the y-axis of Figure 5.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the manuscript is to evaluate the tensile strength differences in the complex restoration of the posterior teeth with dentin replacement made from fibre and non-fibre materials.

The abstract and the main text of the article are informative. The Introduction briefly presents the issue of dentine replacement during direct composite resin restorations. The section “Material and Methods” basically explains the chosen study design. The sections “Results” and “Discussion” are interestingly written, however must be improved. The Conclusions seem to be “take-home” messages.

Some following points must be clarified/corrected for the further processing of this article.

Merits-related comments:

1. In the abstract, add the missing information about the background.
2. Please complete keywords with the proper MeSH terms necessary for indexing in the databases.
3. Please indicate how many samples were divided into the indicated subgroups (12?).
4. “p < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference” can be replaced by “The significance level was set at α=0.05.”.
5. In the case of continuous variables, compliance with the normal distribution must be checked, e.g. by Shapiro-Wilk test. The compared variables probably do not have a normal distribution, and then non-parametric test should be used instead of parametric one. Then, they should be presented as medians and quartiles (not means and standard deviations).
6. Also, it would be useful to compare the fracture pattern distributions between the subgroups with a statistical test, e. g. Chi-square.
7. Plots require graphical adjustments – in their current form, they are not very reader-friendly. I suggest you prepare proper box plots. Additionally, in all result data (including chart axes), the decimal separators should be full stops.
8. It is suggested to add more recent articles from 2017-2022 to the references in the Introduction and Discussion.
9. At the end of the Discussion, the potential study limitations should be explained.

Technical comments:

 

1. Meticulous correction of typos recommended (e. g. in line 113, “MPa” should be instead of “Mpa”).
2. Some producers lack information on the city or country of origin.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The revised version of manuscript is improved, the Authors incorporated the suggestions provided by the reviewers. I thank the Authors for the great effort they have made in responding to the comments of the reviewers. The manuscript can be accepted for publication into Applied Sciences without additional revisions. There are still some typos that must be corrected.

Line 142. Figure 4a ==> Figure 6a

Line 145. Figure 4b ==> Figure 6b

Line 146. Figure 4c ==> Figure 6c

Line 177. “A previous study reported relevant results to the findings of the present study […]”. Reference of this study must be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors have referred to most of the comments and improved the manuscript considerably.

However, the Results section requires further revisions. The table on page 4 should be marked as a table and not as a figure. The values shown in this table should be reduced to a maximum of 2-3 decimal places. Figure 2 regarding the crown surface area should be turned into a box plot. Also, both box plots should contain the legend, which data they show (mean, standard deviation/standard error? confidence interval/minimum-maximum interval?). Moreover, the Authors can try to discuss even more study limitations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx