In Vivo Evaluation of Biocompatibility of Three Biomaterials Used in Endodontics for Prosthetic Purposes in Complex Rehabilitation Treatment
, Cristina Antohi 1,†, Yllka Decolli 1,†, Ovidiu Stamatin 4,*,†, Lupu Iulian Costin 4,†, Bogdan Petru Bulancea 4,†, Laurian Francu 5,†, Eugen Mihalas 6,†and Laura Elisabeta Checherita 1,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction has a low background and the connection between the materials and the prosthetic rehabilitation is not explained.
Why where the rats choosen for the study instead of invitro human cells?
Besides the materials ingredient which are the other differences between the bioceramics?
Author Response
- First of all, thank you for taking the time to evaluate this article, which required the contribution of an entire work team. Regarding the fact that I used experimental animals and not human cell cultures in vitro, I would like to mention that the study is part of my research for the doctoral thesis and unfortunately I did not have the financial resources or laboratory equipment necessary to study on these cell types, the experimental animals being at that time much more handy. However, we are currently taking steps to acquire such cultures and new materials which, we hope, will be the subject of future articles.
- Endodontic cements, as other dental cements, are composed of a variety of complex chemical systems, some of these involve ceramic components A wide variety of ceramics, glasses, and glass-ceramics have been used in dental treatments. The relatively smaller scale and primarily compressive loads have combined to make them appropriate for the purpose of both resistance and biocompatibility. The main difference between the MTA cement that we used and the Bioaggregate is the presence of the ceramic nanoparticles in the latter, giving it more strength and resistance in compression. The Sealapex cement was used as a common endodontic sealer whose rheostatic properties are well known and to which we aimed to compare the other two materials.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract did not provide results and conclusion for this study.
Introduction did not provide any review of literature and no references were given.
In the method section the authors did not provide any details of the qualitative and/or quantitative assessment protocol. There is no mention of any statistical methods being used.
In results section – No statistical test was used to compare groups, except author did provide figures.
In discussion section the authors did provide some references. However, for the present study the author provided only description of results and no explanations and implications of results were provided.
In conclusion “Based on the reaction of the three materials it can be assuming that the biocom- 258 patible material is DiaRootbioaggregate, followed by Sealapex and MTA” the author probably meant ‘it can be assumed…
In my view, whole conclusion section needs to be re-written to provide more clarity.
Author Response
Thanks for the evaluation made in time to make the following clarifications.
The conclusions are generally given by the functionality and the increase of the patients' quality of life being quantified in time and obtaining in general a clear improvement by continuing the treatment and achieving the objectives of the complex oral rehabilitation.
The statistics are evidenced by human subjects who used different means of rehabilitation that they needed individually and the functional results at the end of treatment and after.
Reviewer 3 Report
No changes required
Author Response
Thank you for the evaluation we try to make the right corrections.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract: Abstract should indicate if the aims of the study were achieved and in what way.
Results - Comparison of the groups should be done using statistical methods.
Conclusion - Still needs improvement - " .. it can be concluded ..
similarly MTA was... needs to be revised.
Author Response
Thank you, very much for the need of clarifications, we would like to emphasize that we have tried to maintain more reference data in the introduction to improve the abstract and the conclusions.
I mention that it is a statistical experimental study, a result is not specified except by applicability and functionality in patients treated for rehabilitation.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
