Comparison of Fracture Strengths of Three Provisional Prosthodontic CAD/CAM Materials: Laboratory Fatigue Tests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your resubmission. The experiments have been redone and are on a much more solid scientific basis.  My main comments is to remove a statement from the discussion

"which makes it a possible alternative to titanium in dental implants 
and in implant-supported prostheses."

As PEEK material, whilst durable, does not have the tensile strength, improved biocompatibility to be used for implant fixtures... they are at times used for temporary restorations as a base but manufacturers don't recommend their use for longer than 3 to 6 months.

Please comment on the aesthetic shortcomings of the material as this is a major consideration when using temporary crown material

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

First of all congratulations for your work. 

I appreciate your paper as very interesting for me, since I am part of a researchers  team that studies also the prosthetic interim restorations, regarding their physical and biological properties. I appreciate the studied materials as modern, especially the PEEK. I consider the study well conducted and the paper very clearly and easy to read. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript didn't present any novelty in their work. The writing and presentation were poor, which didn't look like a scientific article. The methods and techniques used in this manuscript were too simple and did't give enough proof to make a complete story. Moreover, this manuscript didn't provides any in vitro study as mentioned in the title. The "in intro" study should include biological experiments. Overall, this manuscript is not good enough for publication and doesn't fit this journal. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author didn't change any content in the manuscript but only a title and a little bit in conclusion. The quality and interest of this manuscript is very low and does not match the journal well. Again, it is not a scientific article for an academic journal.