Advances in the Study of Magnesium Alloys and Their Use in Bone Implant Material

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer comments on manuscript: “ Advances in the study of magnesium alloys and their use in bone implant material”

The reviewed manuscript may be published after major revision.

The reviewed manuscript is a reviewed – article that focuses on magnesium alloys characterization and their possible use as bone implant material. It is a very important subject as it touches lightweight materials that have wide bio-applications. The authors describe different types of alloys as well as manufacturing methods. In the case of alloys, the Authors describe their corrosion behaviour, pointing out this phenomenon as of main importance for implant materials.

 

 

The reviewer has noticed some issues in the text which should be cleared:

Page 3; figure 1 description: image has poor quality – some symbols are not clear.

Page 4; figure 2 description: same as above, here even more symbols are not clear.

               Line146: PLA abbreviation wasn’t explained earlier.

               Line 151: NSF abbreviation wasn’t explained earlier.

Page 5; line 193: no capital letter in “have” twice.

               Line 196: spaces around references are not uniform in the whole manuscript.

Page 6; Fig. 4 (iv) scales are not clear. In the whole figure fonts seems to be too small, and it is too hard to read.

               Fig. 5 (iii) symbols are not clear, it is hard to read them.

Page 7; line 243: it is not clear what "molten gas" means. GMAW stand for "gas metal arc welding". Please correct or explain.

Page 8; Line 284: no capital letter in “This”.

Page 9: Line 316: powers should be in the superscript.

               Line 317: missing space, superscripts.

               Fig. 8: image quality could be improved.

Page 10: figure 9: Low image quality. It is hard to read the text or notice the arrows.

Page 11: Lines 378 and 387: please check the units. Now it is written that coating thickness is given in meters, it should be a much smaller unit in the reviewer's opinion.

Page 12: Line 416: The table description should be at the top of the table. A dot should be placed after the table number. Table rows are not clear.

               Line 423: Please uniform way of placing spaces around the units in the whole manuscript.

               Line 435: “after T6 heat treatment was 133.3 MPa” – It would be good to place the yield and tensile strength of the alloy before heat treatment as a reference. That the reader could assess the impact of the treatment methods.

               Line 441: no capital letter for “As”.

Page 13: figure 10 (a) Description – What does the “zero” value means in the plot?

Page 15: Line 509: superscript.

Page 16: Line 550: Please correct sentence style and sense.

Page 17: Line 582, 583: Please check sentence sense.

Page 18: Line 635: Sentence based on old references, as Reviewer found: “Since 2014 The European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) has recommended that Protelos/Osseor (Strontium renelate) should no longer be used to treat osteoporosis, as it greatly increases the risk of heart problems.” Please check the actual state of the art.

Page 21: Table 2: The table description is in the wrong place. Rows in the table are not creating horizontal lines.

Page 24: Table 3: The table description should be at the top of the table. The “Author” column sticks with the “Alloy types” column. Is it possible to do such formatting corrections that the table will be on one page only?

Page 26: Table 4: Description as above. The “Sample numbers” column name has a different font. Please mind the position of the rows and columns relative to each other.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1：

comments on manuscript: “ Advances in the study of magnesium alloys and their use in bone implant material”

The reviewed manuscript may be published after major revision.

The reviewed manuscript is a reviewed – article that focuses on magnesium alloys characterization and their possible use as bone implant material. It is a very important subject as it touches lightweight materials that have wide bio-applications. The authors describe different types of alloys as well as manufacturing methods. In the case of alloys, the Authors describe their corrosion behaviour, pointing out this phenomenon as of main importance for implant materials.

The reviewer has noticed some issues in the text which should be cleared:

Page 3; figure 1 description: image has poor quality – some symbols are not clear.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The image has changed to high quality.

Page 4; figure 2 description: same as above, here even more symbols are not clear.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The image has changed to high quality.

               Line146: PLA abbreviation wasn’t explained earlier.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The ‘Polylactic Acid’ has been used to substitute PLA at line 146.

               Line 151: NSF abbreviation wasn’t explained earlier.

Thanks for your comments! The ‘National Science Foundation’ has been used to substitute NSF at line 151.

Page 5; line 193: no capital letter in “have” twice.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The typo has been revised.

               Line 196: spaces around references are not uniform in the whole manuscript.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! A space gap has been added after the reference.

Page 6; Fig. 4 (iv) scales are not clear. In the whole figure fonts seems to be too small, and it is too hard to read.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The Fig 4 (iv) scales has changed to high quality.

               Fig. 5 (iii) symbols are not clear, it is hard to read them.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The Fig 5 has changed to high quality.

Page 7; line 243: it is not clear what "molten gas" means. GMAW stand for "gas metal arc welding". Please correct or explain.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! GMAW is the abbreviation of gas metal arc welding. The typo has been revised.

Page 8; Line 284: no capital letter in “This”.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The typo has been revised.

Page 9: Line 316: powers should be in the superscript.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The typo has been revised.

               Line 317: missing space, superscripts.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The space has been added on superscripts.

               Fig. 8: image quality could be improved.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The Fig 8 has changed to high quality.

Page 10: figure 9: Low image quality. It is hard to read the text or notice the arrows.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The Fig 9 has changed to high quality.

Page 11: Lines 378 and 387: please check the units. Now it is written that coating thickness is given in meters, it should be a much smaller unit in the reviewer's opinion.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The thickness unit is micro-meter and it has been revised in the manuscript.

Page 12: Line 416: The table description should be at the top of the table. A dot should be placed after the table number. Table rows are not clear.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The table description has been put at the top. Other issues have also been revised.

               Line 423: Please uniform way of placing spaces around the units in the whole manuscript.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The way of placing spaces has been uniformed.

               Line 435: “after T6 heat treatment was 133.3 MPa” – It would be good to place the yield and tensile strength of the alloy before heat treatment as a reference. That the reader could assess the impact of the treatment methods.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The data has been added before heat treatment for comparison.

               Line 441: no capital letter for “As”.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The typo has been revised.

Page 13: figure 10 (a) Description – What does the “zero” value means in the plot?

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The meaning of 0 is not mentioned in the references, and we have made comments in the article.

Page 15: Line 509: superscript.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The superscript at line 509 has been revised.

Page 16: Line 550: Please correct sentence style and sense.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The sentence on line 550 has been revised.

Page 17: Line 582, 583: Please check sentence sense.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The sentences on line 582 and 583 have been revised.

Page 18: Line 635: Sentence based on old references, as Reviewer found: “Since 2014 The European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) has recommended that Protelos/Osseor (Strontium renelate) should no longer be used to treat osteoporosis, as it greatly increases the risk of heart problems.” Please check the actual state of the art.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The old reference data are deleted.

Page 21: Table 2: The table description is in the wrong place. Rows in the table are not creating horizontal lines.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The location of the table description has been changed.

Page 24: Table 3: The table description should be at the top of the table. The “Author” column sticks with the “Alloy types” column. Is it possible to do such formatting corrections that the table will be on one page only?

Response:

Thanks for your comments! The table description has been put at the top. We have combined alloy types and authors according to your suggestions.

Page 26: Table 4: Description as above. The “Sample numbers” column name has a different font. Please mind the position of the rows and columns relative to each other.

Response:

Thanks for your comments! We have unified the font of sample numbers. And the table is optimized.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is very good. The paper could be published after minor corrections. 

Remark. Please, remove some words from titles, lines 417, 418 and 466.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your comments! We have removed some words from titles, lines 417, 418 and 466

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks a lot for this fascinating and interesting review summarizing the state-of-the-art regarding Mg-based alloys for biomedical applications. I believe that the manuscript is appropriate for publication in "Metals" because this is an important contribution to both materials science and trauma/orthopedic subjects, including relative fields like animal husbandry and veterinary science.

The review contributes to a paradigm for future studies and surgical modalities on crucial issues regarding biodegradable devices, which enable the following medical treatment to be reliable and effective. In particular, the reported data are believed to create new insight for the medical industry to choose and approve optimal ternary/quaternary Mg-based alloy implants for further improved patient tolerance as compared to well-known surgical techniques.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments! We will do more research on ternary/quaternary Mg-based alloy implants in the future.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

At present form this is the high quality article that describe bio-applications of Mg-alloys.