Design and 3D Printing of Interbody Fusion Cage Based on TPMS Porous Structure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall the work is good. It could be published after minor revisions.

1. Language is not well written. Many sentences are written without making any sense. Please check it carefully.
   2. Abstract is also generalised. Please include technical findings.
2. conclusion need some minor changes

Author Response

尊敬的编辑和审稿人，

感谢您的来信和审稿人对我们题为“基于 TPMS 多孔结构的椎间融合器的设计和 3D 打印”（手稿 ID：applsci-1421184）的评论。这些意见对我们论文的修改和完善都很有价值，非常有帮助，对我们的研究也有重要的指导意义。我们仔细研究了这些意见，并作出了更正，希望得到批准。修改后的部分在稿件中用红色标记，并作为“仅供审阅的支持信息”文件上传。对编辑和审稿人意见的答复及论文中的主要更正如下：

评论员 #1

主要评论：对作者的评论（如果有）：

审稿人#1：审稿意见：

1. 语言写得不好。很多句子写得毫无意义。请仔细检查。
2. 抽象也是泛化的。请包括技术发现。
3. 结论需要一些小的改动。

回应：我们衷心感谢审稿人对我们工作的积极评价。审稿人的问题和建议对我们提高稿件质量很有帮助。下面我们根据审稿人的意见修改稿件，一一回复。

评论1：语言写得不好。很多句子写得毫无意义。请仔细检查。

回复：感谢审稿人的意见。针对你提出的问题，我们修改了很多句子，大大缩短了论文的相关篇幅，重构了语言。

评论 2：摘要也是概括的。请包括技术发现。

回复：感谢审稿人的意见。针对抽象问题，我们重写了摘要，并添加了相关的技术发现。

评论 3：结论需要一些小的改动。

回复：感谢审稿人的建议。我们对结论做了一些修改。删除原结论1，修改其他相关结论。

我们对编辑/审稿人的热情工作表示由衷的感谢，并希望更正得到批准。

再次非常感谢您的意见和建议。

我们期待您提供有关我们修改后的论文的信息，并感谢您的好评。

 

此致，

金来奇

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper present a new method for production of personalised interbody fusion cage.

The manuscript include extensive introduction and methods. The authors explain very well the mechanical engineering aspect of the design and production. However, the explanaition and reference to the biological aspect should be based on results from own or others experiments. Unfortunatelly that is missing in this paper.

Please consider to not refer to biocompatibility/cell interaction with the surface if that has not been investigated in this study

Please see also additional comments. to the manuscript.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Referees,

Thanks for your letter and for the referees’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Design and 3D printing of interbody fusion cage based on TPMS porous structure” (Manuscript ID: applsci-1421184). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied these comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript and uploaded as a “Supporting Information for Review Only” file. The responds to the editor and reviewers’ comments and the main corrections in the paper are as following:

Reviewer #2

Main Comment:

The paper presents a new method for production of personalized interbody fusion cage. The manuscript includes extensive introduction and methods. The authors explain very well the mechanical engineering aspect of the design and production. However, the explanation and reference to the biological aspect should be based on results from own or others experiments. Unfortunately, that is missing in this paper. Please consider to not refer to biocompatibility/cell interaction with the surface if that has not been investigated in this study. Please see also additional comments. to the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Review comments:

1. Please explain 1st abbreviation.
2. Please explain POD, CA and MMA abbreviation.
3. Please could you consider to delete "so on" as it rather spoken phrase.
4. Please explain abbreviation when using it for the 1st time.
5. Please could you consider to delete "so on" as it rather spoken phrase.
6. Poor grammar please re-write.
7. Please could you consider to delete "so on" as it rather spoken phrase.
8. Please provide the reference for Young modulus and Poisson.

Response: We express sincere thanks to the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work. The reviewer’s questions and suggestions are very helpful for improving the quality of our manuscript. In the following, we revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments and responded one by one.

Comment 1: Please explain 1st abbreviation.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. TPMS-P refers to the porous structure based on P surface. P surface is a kind of TPMS surface, which we collectively call TPMS-P for easy expression.

Comment 2: Please explain POD, CA and MMA abbreviation.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. POD algorithm refers to the Proper orthogonal decomposition, CA algorithm refers to the Combined Approximation, MMA algorithm refers to the Method of Moving Asymptotes.

Comment3: Please could you consider to delete "so on" as it rather spoken phrase.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We reorganized the paper statements, and the corresponding "and so on" are replaced by "et al".

Comment 4: Please explain abbreviation when using it for the 1st time.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. TPMS refers to Triply Periodic Minimal Surface, which has been added in the manuscript and marked in red.

Comment5: Please could you consider to delete "so on" as it rather spoken phrase.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We reorganized the paper statements, and the corresponding "and so on" are replaced by "et al".

Comment6: Poor grammar please re-write.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We re-write the sentence and highlight it in red in the manuscript.

Comment7: Please could you consider to delete "so on" as it rather spoken phrase.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We reorganized the paper statements, and the corresponding "and so on" are replaced by "et al".

Comment8: Please provide the reference for Young modulus and Poisson.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We have provided relevant reference [25] in the manuscript, marked in red.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

We look forward to your information about our revised papers and thank you for your good comments.

 

Yours sincerely,

Jinlai Qi

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Figure 2 needs rearrangement in page equation 2-4, 2-10 in different font tables 1-4 need rearrangement

Author Response

Dear Editors and Referees,

Thanks for your letter and for the referees’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Design and 3D printing of interbody fusion cage based on TPMS porous structure” (Manuscript ID: applsci-1421184). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied these comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript and uploaded as a “Supporting Information for Review Only” file. The responds to the editor and reviewers’ comments and the main corrections in the paper are as following:

Reviewer #3

Main Comment: Comments to the author (if any):

Reviewer #3: Review comments:

1. Figure 2 needs rearrangement in page equation 2-4, 2-10 in different font tables 1-4 need rearrangement.

Response: We express sincere thanks to the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work. The reviewer’s questions and suggestions are very helpful for improving the quality of our manuscript. In the following, we revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments and responded one by one.

Comment 1: Figure 2 needs rearrangement in page equation 2-4, 2-10 in different font tables 1-4 need rearrangement.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We move Figure 2. to Figure 4. and remove related formulas 2-4, 2-10, 1-4. Related formulas are included as an appendix, which not only reduced the length of the paper but also made it easier for readers to read.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

We look forward to your information about our revised papers and thank you for your good comments.   

 

Yours sincerely,

Jinlai Qi

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is very interesting study, which is quite difficult to understand, overall the quality is high but paper is very long. My comments are suggestions to improve the understandability of the paper for the average reader.

1. More references in the introduction, lines 39 onward, would help the reader understand the magnitude of the problem. In fact there are only 24 references in the whole manuscript.. the excellent work performed should be better intergrated into the existing literature, with many more references.

2. line 54...sentence does not make sense.

3. there is a massive mathematical section describing P-surfaces and the algorithm, this might be really distracting for most readers, so i suggest it is edited more concisely - perhaps moving some of it to supporting info. Also if similar mathematical descriptions exist in the literature then perhaps it would be a good idea to reference these - which might also save some space.

4. Although the studies are good, there is no clear experimental (or materials and methods) section. The authors need to adopt the standard scientific format ensuring that their experiments can be duplicated by other readers. For example the 3D printing methods are not clear, i.e. it is not clear (easy to find out) what printer was used, what print settings were used or varied etc.

5. The data in figure 17 are interesting but experimental details of how this experiment was performed is not clear. There are no error bars in the figure, please add these how may experimental repeats were performed. Same goes for figure 13.

6. the discussion and conclusions are a little repetitive, so could possibly be edited down a bit think, it will help to improve the papers quality.

7. some of the figures are hard to read Figures 10, 11 & 12, also some of the Tables are not well justified in the text - so it is hard to follow the arguments. Figure 15, 16, 17 have parts a, b, c, d, e - these are not defined in the figure legends - (they are sometimes defined in the text) but defining in the legend is the conventional format. Please ensure all figures adopt this approach.

8. Finally, i would like to reiterate that the manuscript does not appear to be divided into the standard format i.e. Introduction, Experimental (materials and methods), Results, Discussion etc. This is very distracting, its hard to follow the overall paper and should be rectified. For example all the experimental (or simulations) methodologies used should be clearly stated in the methods section and all experiments clearly described in a way that makes them reproducible by someone else. At the moment it is really hard to find out all the details - i strongly suggest restructuring the manuscript in the conventional scientific format.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Referees,

Thanks for your letter and for the referees’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Design and 3D printing of interbody fusion cage based on TPMS porous structure” (Manuscript ID: applsci-1421184). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied these comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript and uploaded as a “Supporting Information for Review Only” file. The responds to the editor and reviewers’ comments and the main corrections in the paper are as following:

Reviewer #4

Main Comment:

This is very interesting study, which is quite difficult to understand. Overall, the quality is high but paper is very long. My comments are suggestions to improve the understandability of the paper for the average reader.

Reviewer #4: Review comments:

1. More references in the introduction, lines 39 onward, would help the reader understand the magnitude of the problem. In fact, there are only 24 references in the whole manuscript. The excellent work performed should be better integrated into the existing literature, with many more references.
2. Line 54...sentence does not make sense.
3. There is a massive mathematical section describing P-surfaces and the algorithm. This might be really distracting for most readers, so I suggest it is edited more concisely-perhaps moving some of it to supporting info. And if similar mathematical descriptions exist in the literatures. Then perhaps it would be a good idea to reference these-which might also save some space.
4. Although the studies are good, there is no clear experimental (or materials and methods) section. The authors need to adopt the standard scientific format ensuring that their experiments can be duplicated by other readers. For example, the 3D printing methods are not clear, i.e. It is not clear (easy to find out) what printer was used, what print settings were used or varied etc.
5. The data in figure 17 are interesting but experimental details of how this experiment was performed is not clear. There are no error bars in the figure, please add these how may experimental repeats were performed. Same goes for figure 13.
6. The discussion and conclusions are a little repetitive, so could possibly be edited down a bit think, it will help to improve the papers quality.
7. Some of the figures are hard to read Figures 10, 11 & 12, also some of the Tables are not well justified in the text-so it is hard to follow the arguments. Figure 15, 16, 17 have parts a, b, c, d, e-these are not defined in the figure legends - (they are sometimes defined in the text) but defining in the legend is the conventional format. Please ensure all figures adopt this approach.
8. Finally, I would like to reiterate that the manuscript does not appear to be divided into the standard format. Introduction, Experimental (materials and methods), Results, Discussion etc. This is very distracting, it’s hard to follow the overall paper and should be rectified. For example, all the experimental (or simulations) methodologies used should be clearly stated in the methods section and all experiments clearly described in a way that makes them reproducible by someone else. At present it is really hard to find out all the details - i strongly suggest restructuring the manuscript in the conventional scientific format.

Response: We express sincere thanks to the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work. The reviewer’s questions and suggestions are very helpful for improving the quality of our manuscript. In the following, we revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments and responded one by one.

Comment 1: More references in the introduction, lines 39 onward, would help the reader understand the magnitude of the problem. In fact, there are only 24 references in the whole manuscript. The excellent work performed should be better integrated into the existing literature, with many more references.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. For the problem that there are few references mentioned by you, we have added two references [24]、[25]. The 26 references cited so far basically meet the requirements of this paper.

Comment 2: Line 54...sentence does not make sense.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. This sentence mainly tells readers the advantages of additive manufacturing method and points out that this method will be used for manufacturing of this paper. Therefore, this sentence has some effect. The author does not think deletion is necessary.

Comment3: There is a massive mathematical section describing P-surfaces and the algorithm. This might be really distracting for most readers, so I suggest it is edited more concisely-perhaps moving some of it to supporting info. And if similar mathematical descriptions exist in the literatures. Then perhaps it would be a good idea to reference these-which might also save some space.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We have presented all the relevant formulas as an appendix. In the paper, we used words to introduce the relevant content and operation steps of each link. This can not only facilitate readers to understand, but also reduce the length of the paper. If appendices are needed, we will provide them together later.

Comment 4: Although the studies are good, there is no clear experimental (or materials and methods) section. The authors need to adopt the standard scientific format ensuring that their experiments can be duplicated by other readers. For example, the 3D printing methods are not clear, i.e. It is not clear (easy to find out) what printer was used, what print settings were used or varied etc.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. Take 3D printing as an example, the corresponding printing methods and materials have been introduced in paper. The relevant printer and print settings have been added and are marked in red in this article. In this experiment, EP-M250 metal 3D printer is used.

Comment5: The data in figure 17 are interesting but experimental details of how this experiment was performed is not clear. There are no error bars in the figure, please add these how may experimental repeats were performed. Same goes for figure 13.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We change Figure 13 to Figure 7, and the relevant experimental details are marked in red on page 6. The reason for this is that the above experiments are all compression analysis experiments, and the details of the experiments are the same, so the description will not be repeated. Figure 13 mainly organizes the above-mentioned compression analysis experimental data and displays it in tabular form to give readers an intuitive understanding. The number of experiments is once for each model, and the number of points in the figure 13 represents the number of models and the number of experiments. This experiment does not set error bars, so there are no error bars in the figure. We change Figure 17 to Figure 11, and the relevant experimental details are marked in red on page 12. This is a compression analysis experiment, and the corresponding experiment times are all once. The experiment does not set error bars, so there are no error bars in the figure 17.

Comment6: The discussion and conclusions are a little repetitive, so could possibly be edited down a bit think, it will help to improve the papers quality.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We re-edited the discussion and conclusion of the paper, which is reflected in the new paper manuscript.

Comment7: Some of the figures are hard to read Figures 10, 11 & 12, also some of the Tables are not well justified in the text-so it is hard to follow the arguments. Figure 15, 16, 17 have parts a, b, c, d, e-these are not defined in the figure legends - (they are sometimes defined in the text) but defining in the legend is the conventional format. Please ensure all figures adopt this approach.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We remove Figure 10 and merge Figures 11 and 12 into Figure 6. The relevant data in Figure 6 are marked in red on pages 6 and 7. Figure 15, 17 changed to Figure 10, 11. We remove Figure 16. In addition, parts a, b, c, d and e in Figure 10, 11 are redefined in this paper.

Comment8: Finally, I would like to reiterate that the manuscript does not appear to be divided into the standard format. Introduction, Experimental (materials and methods), Results, Discussion etc. This is very distracting, it’s hard to follow the overall paper and should be rectified. For example, all the experimental (or simulations) methodologies used should be clearly stated in the methods section and all experiments clearly described in a way that makes them reproducible by someone else. At present, it is really hard to find out all the details - i strongly suggest restructuring the manuscript in the conventional scientific format.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We reformat the paper and reorganized it according to the standard format.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

We look forward to your information about our revised papers and thank you for your good comments.

 

Yours sincerely,

Jinlai Qi

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

It is clear the authors have considered my comments and made the changes they feel are appropriate. The large number of tracked changes in the manuscript make it hard to completely assess the quality of the final version but I am happy my comments have been considered.