Impact of Various Cavity-Preparation Designs on Fracture Resistance and Failure Mode of CAD/CAM Fabricated Ceramic Inlays and Onlays

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is a good choice and has become a real interest in the dental world because  CAD-CAM reduces production errors. Clinical fractures and failure are based on different properties of the materials, but also the dental preparation of the teeth.  According to the chapter on materials and methods, onlay and inlay are prepared with different inter-cuspal distances.  A tasting machine was used to measure the fracture. Interesting are the results presented in table 4. All the groups have fracture tips III and IV.  Group 6 has the best fracture resistance. Explain what are the implications of fracture tip IV. In the discussion chapter, 305-308 row you present the advantages of adhesive cementation, but it is interesting to present the characteristics of zirconia cementation. The conclusions are well systematized, and clinical application is important for the practitioner. 

Author Response

Attached PDF file with the response to all raised points

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to make some suggestions for revisions:

Abstract: LIne 6-7 There are systematic reviews, met-analyses, clinical studies, in vitro studies that already have prooved it. Remove the sentence.

Introduction: Poor first paragraph for a scientific journal. This could belong to a novel. Rewrite

Second paragraph: poor grammar, please re-write

Third paragraph: There are reference missing for lines 32-33, 33-34

Lines 36-38: Zirconia is a polycrystalline ceramic, the phrase ceramic steel  belongs to unscientific views of dentistry. Erase

Lines 39-46. Re-write the whole paragraph. The entire paragraph contains empirical dogmas regarding when indirect restorations are applied, which are erroneous.

Lines 52-53 Reference missing

Lines 66: 

is zirconia indicated for inlays and onlays? Please give a reference

Table 1: Correct the numbers in the Al203

Preparation procedure: There are no details about how the authors prepare the cavities with the exact dimensions.

Fabrication of inlay and onlay restorations: Programmat CS is not a sintering furnace

Results: Poor Results paragraph. Elaborate on the numerical findings of the groups

Discussion: different null hypothesis in the introduction section

Line 244: Reference missing

Line 255: Replace here with in this study

Line 325: ceramic or zirconia? The research is for zirconia

Minor errors found. Please proofread the manuscript

Author Response

Attached PDF file with the response to all raised points

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article needs to be further checked by a native English speaker, and academic language needs checking.

Line 29. What do you mean by natural composite resin repairs? Direct composite resin restorations?

Line 39. "Restorations can be classified as inlays..." I'm sorry, the entire statement is not correct, many other types of fixed dental restorations exist-like crowns, bridges etc., not to mention removable ones. Please rephrase.

Line 47-49. Not to mention the type of ceramic...

Line 64. Please specify that zirconia ceramic inlays and onlays were assessed. 

Table 1 and 2. Please use manufacturer instead of constructor.

Line 103. Please use impression instead of imprint. 

As I understand, each group consisted of 10 teeth, please specify. 

Please add images of the prepared teeth, showing the cavities and the inlays/onlays placed in the cavities. it's very difficult to picture the cavity layout by description only. 

Line 299. "The glass-free, high-strength polycrystalline ceramic material used in this work is called yttria-stabilized zirconia, and it has a flexural strength of about 1000 MPa [36]. The ceramic was found to have a flexural strength of more than 1000 MPa." This doesn't seem right, please correct. 

needs checking.

Author Response

Attached PDF file with the response to all raised points

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments

Minor issues

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no further comments and suggestions. Thank you for answering all my concerns.