Three-Dimensional Printed Attachments: Analysis of Reproduction Accuracy Compared to Traditional Attachments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The introduction on the literature review must be improved and reorganized.

2. Section 3 results mush be elaborated for an international journal.

3. Given that the manuscript can be a technology note. The scientific merits of this work should be highlighted, as well as the main contributions compared to the traditional method.

4. Fig.7-9 should be provided the quantitative data for some selected points.

5. Conclusions must be rewritted. 

6. There are insufficient references cited for an international journal.

7. The quality of Fig. 1 and 2 should be improved. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for the time spent reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable suggestions. We have made the following changes:

We have revised and improved the introduction, better organizing the literature review to make it more coherent and informative.

Section 3 on the results has been extensively elaborated to meet the standards of an international journal, providing additional details and in-depth interpretations of the data.

We have emphasized the scientific merits of our work and its main contributions compared to the traditional method, clearly highlighting them in the text.

Quantitative data have been integrated for selected points in Figures 7-9, thus enhancing the completeness of the presented information.

The conclusions have been rewritten to better reflect the results and implications of our study.

We have expanded the number of cited references, including additional relevant sources for publication in an international journal.

We have improved the quality of Fig.1 and 2 and write the quantitative data on selected points in Figures 6,7,8 and 9

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

A very interesting article developed following all requirements regarding research on patients and compliance with the GDPR. Verified and homogeneous research developed based on clear research protocols. Patient groups are selected according to a transparent and consistent key.

However, the structure of the article requires reconstruction. The main research part presenting the research results cannot be included in the "5. Conclusions" section - in the reviewer's opinion, this part of the work should be included in the "3. Results" section.

It is worth considering the validity of illustrating the data in a very extensive Table 1 - the data contained therein can be described more "compactly" or presented graphically - there is no need to expose this fragment of data in such a way.

Please unify tab 2 and tab 3, group the presented data in appropriate series, and justify it in one line, which will improve the readability of the results.

I suggest analyzing the results directly under the table. The adopted form of presentation is difficult to interpret - reading descriptions and referring to data in the table is difficult.

Figs 2 to 9 should also be linked to the text in a place appropriate to the description - reading the text and going to the last pages is not a good idea for data presentation.

There were a lot of citations from the literature [11], but the articles constitute a coherent and logical whole, it may be worth expanding the literature with the works of other authors.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed each of your points as follows:

We have restructured the article to ensure that the main research results are presented in the "Results" section rather than the "Conclusions" section, as per your suggestion.

Table 1 has been revised to present the data more compactly and graphically, as recommended. We have also reorganized Table 2 and Table 3 to make them easier to understand.

The results are now analyzed directly under the table, as suggested, to facilitate easier interpretation for readers.

Figures 2 to 9 have been linked to the relevant text descriptions for better data presentation and comprehension.

We have expanded the literature by incorporating works from other authors to complement the citations provided in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, thabnk you for this interesting article, but I would suggest some small changes in it:

1. The introduction should be longer. I would suggest concentrating on the need of aligners, eg.:

- need for improvements of esthetics - the influence of brackets and "standard" way of treatment on quality of life, eg. Barrera-Chaparro JP, Plaza-Ruíz SP, Parra KL, et al. Orthodontic treatment need, the types of brackets and the oral healthrelated quality of life. Dent Med Probl. 2023;60(2):287–294. doi:10.17219/dmp/151577

- the root resorption amount - comparative studies between brackets and aligners

- concentration on the treatment esthetics (eg. incisor symmetry, subjective and objective evaluation of symmetry (arch, incisors), not only the way it looks at the treatment, but also the final outcome

- the cooperation concerns (removable appliance such as aligner to fixed appliance)

- the concerns on the changes of materials proferties, especially during the preparation of the specimens

( Paradowska-Stolarz, A.; Wezgowiec, J.; Malysa, A.; Wieckiewicz, M. Effects of Polishing and Artificial Aging on Mechanical Properties of Dental LT Clear^® Resin. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 295. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14060295)

but also eg. fractal dimension and texture analysis (one of the commonly used materials for 3d printing in aligners is Dental LT Clear)

2. Line 97, please state if the tray was literally cut into 3 pieces or you were bonding attachments using 3 regions?

3. The tables and figures should be where they belong, not at the end of the manusript body. It is much more readable, when they are followed by the main text.

4. In the discussion, please refer to the composite attachments made in the "regular" way, you could also add the spect of materials' resistance to the forces (especially comparative 3d printed materials to traditional ones) - please, add this aspect to discussion

5. Add the limitations of the study and the potential clinical outcome to other Researchers and the Readers. 

6. Line 243- I do not understad?

7. The number of references should be at least 25-30 to this kind of research.

Thank you

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our article. We have addressed each of your points as follows:

The introduction has been expanded to include the suggested topics, such as the need for aligners, comparative studies on root resorption between brackets and aligners, treatment aesthetics, cooperation concerns, and material properties changes. We have also included relevant references, including Paradowska-Stolarz et al. (2023), which discusses the effects of polishing and artificial aging on the mechanical properties of Dental LT Clear® resin.

Line 97 has been clarified to specify whether the tray was cut into three pieces or if attachments were bonded using three regions.

Tables and figures have been relocated to appropriate positions within the manuscript, following the main text for improved readability.

In the discussion section, we have included a reference to composite attachments made in the "regular" way and added a discussion on the materials' resistance to forces, particularly comparing 3D printed materials to traditional ones.

We have added limitations of the study and potential clinical outcomes for other researchers and readers to consider.

Line 243 has been reviewed and clarified for better understanding.

The number of references has been increased to meet the suggested range of 25-30 for this type of research.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My reviewing comments have been well replied and accepted now. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the corrections that to my mind improved your paper a lot. Congratulations!