Surface Modification of Titanium by Femtosecond Laser in Reducing Bacterial Colonization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a study on Surface Modification of Titanium by Femtosecond Laser in Reducing Bacterial Colonization. The study is quite interesting but some aspects must be improved so that the work can be accepted for publication.
(a) Authors use titles without placing them as subsections in various sections of the manuscript and should avoid doing so in my opinion. Examples of this are lines 99, 110, 121, 132, 139, 143, 167, 196, 213,...
(b) The authors say that compositional analysis was analyzed by XPS and this is not true. XPS does not provide this analysis. Please rectify this statement.
(c) SEM images of figure 1 should be improved. They are very dark and you cannot see the details that the authors want to show.
(d) CLSM images of figure 6 should also be improved. They are very dark and you cannot see the details that the authors want to show.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The scientific paper "Surface Modification of Titanium by Femtosecond Laser in Reducing Bacterial Colonization" aimed to in vitro study was to find an implant surface with good biocompatibility and antimicrobial properties by the modification of micron-scale topographies. It can be considered that:
- Insert more details about the methodology used in the abstract.
- At the end of the introduction, in addition to being more direct in its objective, the gap in the literature that justified this study should be inserted.
- In the introduction, the authors should talk in more detail about the influence and use of stem cells in bone regeneration. I suggest manuscript https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10092323
- In the methodology, the authors need to detail the manufacturers, city and country of the equipment used.
- At the end of the discussion, include study limitations and future prospects for in vivo study and use in clinical practice.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the work interesting. However, it is left to the reader to understand the antimicrobial activity mechanism of four different microtopography coating toward S. aureus and S. epidermidis. I think the authors should provide explanations from this aspect in their revised manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be now accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
No comments