Tests of Dental Properties of Composite Materials Containing Nanohybrid Filler

●             Abstract looks too much generic! There need to be statistically data to show the significance of the current work. No clarity about the type of material used? What made you to choose this problem? What are all the salient points about this study? What are the limitations of existing materials? Why nano hybrid? What is the benchmark here? What makes them to be compared?

●             Title seems to be simple, need to modify to attract more readers

●             Abstract should comprise of background, method, results and conclusion.

●             Authors quote hydrolysis process except that there are no significant details mentioned in the abstract – to be precise what all tested? With some statistics in broad perspective such as overall enhancement has to be shown in the abstract

●             Abstract underscores the content as limitation is 200 words where as currently its 160 words.

●             As per journal guidelines 4 to 6 keywords need to be used  

●             References should be mentioned as per the journal guidelines

●             Authors have to cross verify the quoted references as not more than 2-3 articles are self-cited. Which looks to be bit on higher side (as it’s not a good practice)

●             Out of more than 40 papers in reference, only 11 papers are recent which seems to be slightly lower at least more than 50% of the articles should be from recent years such as 2022, 2021 and 2020

·                    Introduction should be focusing on already established methods for various kinds of materials or applications. Few of the recent methodologies can be considered as references –

·                    doi.org/10.3390/polym13172905

·                    doi.org/10.3390/polym13172951

·                    10.1016/B978-0-12-819904-6.00022-0

●             There is no information about number of samples considered for testing?

●             The entire process could have been explained with process map for easy understanding

●             No information about the raw material procurement as well as all the five defined materials

●             Why filler sizes restricted to particles with dimensions from 0.2 to 70 μm in case of micro and particles with dimensions from 0.005 to 0.04 μm for nano filler? Justify

●             In methods section it is recommended to explain only the process of experiment rather than outcomes (line 77 to line 86)

●             All the properties have to be explained with methodology in section 2 and outcome in results and discussion

●             There is hardly any discussion with earlier citations from previous works. Why?

●             There is no justification for the resulted outcome. Somewhere try to validate and verify the results… why they are behaving so…

●             What should be the optimal value based on the predecessor work. That has to be benchmarked and compared with current work

●             Figure 9 is not clear and no explanation about it with peer article comparison

●             There need to be standard deviation or tolerance value …

●             Any characterization study such as FT-IR, EDX, SEM and TEM would have helped in detail to justify the results.

●            Any statistical/simulation tool usage to reduce the experimental work or to reduce the number of parameters which are non-critical or significant while testing.

●            Best practice while mentioning the graphs to maintain a uniformity of units (SI unit usually preferred)

●            Results and discussions are acceptable only with any correlation between the current used material and existing materials in public domain

●            There is no comparative study with analytical/experimental/simulation for validation of the extracted results

●             There is no discussion section in the manuscript. Without the discussion section how, any conclusion is accepted

●             Conclusion section is lengthy, part of it can be considered under discussion section

●             The discussion section should have good no. of article comparison to arrive at outcome comparison.  

●             The work seems limited and doesn’t have validation or verification with any other statistical/simulation work is missing?

●             Conclusion looks to be generic need to compile the outcomes and state based on the tests conducted and convey how best this can fit in the current context for any application.

●             In conclusion section, values have to be displayed with explanation. It's better to mention the salient features of the entire work in terms of bullet points with current context