Next Article in Journal
Mini-Review: Potential of Diatom-Derived Silica for Biomedical Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
New Training Approach for Improving the Spatial Perception and Orientation Ability of Dentistry Students
Previous Article in Journal
Multilevel Gene Regulation Using Switchable Transcription Terminator and Toehold Switch in Escherichia coli
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

(In-Vitro Comparison between Closed Versus Open CAD/CAM Systems) Comparison between Closed and Open CAD/CAM Systems by Evaluating the Marginal Fit of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic Crowns

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(10), 4534; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104534
by Gil Ben-Izhack *,†, Asaf Shely †, Omer Koton, Avi Meirowitz, Shifra Levartovsky and Eran Dolev
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(10), 4534; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104534
Submission received: 26 April 2021 / Revised: 12 May 2021 / Accepted: 14 May 2021 / Published: 16 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection State-of-the-Art Dentistry and Oral Health)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research “Comparison between closed versus open CAD/CAM systems by evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate ceramic crowns” was written according to the instructions.

The introduction gives an insight into the problem. Materials and methods are well described and refer to previous researches. The results are presented with figures and tables. It is recommended to use abbreviations correctly and write the references to the instructions.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, the present study is well conducted and well written, however i have some comments regarding the manuscript:

-describe more carefully the difference between MG and AMG and the clinical importance of these, focusing on the different way of measuring and reporting these parameters between already published studies (as mentioned in the discussion);

-Improve Figure 3 to clarify what the reader is seeing;

-I suggest to move from the Discussion to Materials and Methods the following part: Page 6 line 188 to 198.

-Highlights in the Conclusion the clinical relevance of your findings;

Best regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop