Effects of Composite Resin on the Enamel after Debonding: An In Vitro Study—Metal Brackets vs. Ceramic Brackets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

the article is very well done, please review the introduction and discussion, 

add more references. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Well-structured manuscript, with an accurate clinical and static analysis: I would only like to add to the discussion of the evaluation of the pre-bonding prophylaxis systems, which many times can considerably affect the early detachment of the brackets, I am attaching the reference:

Pre-bonding prophylaxis and brackets detachment: An experimental comparison of different methods  
(2014) International Journal of Clinical Dentistry, 7 (2), pp. 191-197.

And recommend the use of biomimetic hydroxyapatite which does not affect the adhesion of the composite enamel junction, I am attaching a reference:

Biomimetic Effect of Nano-Hydroxyapatite in Demineralized Enamel before Orthodontic Bonding of Brackets and Attachments: Visual, Adhesion Strength, and Hardness in in Vitro Tests

BioMed Research International, 2020, 2020, 6747498

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The article is very interesting and deals with important research topics.
2. In the introduction, too little attention has been paid to modern materials in orthodontics (lines 42-51), and in particular to the role of coatings. I propose, for example, to look at the article: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/13/15/3257
3. Lines 156-160: The authors wrote about the performed statistical analysis. I do not fully understand where the test for dependent groups and where for independent groups was used. There is also no reference to these tests in the Results section.
4. Figure 6: Here, the statistical significance (or not) for the given pairs of variables should be clearly marked. It is necessary to complete the description of the results.
5. The discussion of the results is too weak a discussion. Very few authors and publications are cited in this section of the article. The discussion should refer to numerous studies in recent years.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I accept the introduced changes.