Impact of Water Solubility on Chemical Composition and Surface Structure of Two Generations of Bioceramic Root Canal Sealers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well written article and well conducted research.
The authors investigated several key properties so that they can assess recently introduced materials.
I have some minor comments:
In Introduction, line 41, the chemical elements should have subscript and superscript their numbers.
Also, perhaps add a short paragraph about bioceramic root canal sealers and their differences to conventional ones.
Methods:
There is no description on the composition of the materials tested.
Results
Figure 1A, there are no units on the y axis. I suggest to be replaced by a graph.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is a well written article and well conducted research.
The authors investigated several key properties so that they can assess recently introduced materials.
I have some minor comments:
In Introduction, line 41, the chemical elements should have subscript and superscript their numbers.
Changes were made. Please check line 62
Also, perhaps add a short paragraph about bioceramic root canal sealers and their differences to conventional ones.
Changes were made. Please check line 43-54
Methods:
There is no description on the composition of the materials tested.
Changes were made. Please check line 68-71
Results
Figure 1A, there are no units on the y axis. I suggest to be replaced by a graph.
I am not sure if I understand your suggestion. This is a grouped bar graph of five different tests “solubility, pH changes, calcium ions release, phosphate ions release and silicon ions release” the Y axis represents the mean ± standard deviation values. Please note that each test has a different unit as shown in the bar graph. Solubility is measured with %, pH changes is measured in number, calcium, phosphate and silicon ions releases are measured with (mg/kg). To make it clearer, unit was added on the left side of each bar.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript about the analysis of the influence of solubility on the chemical and surface properties of bioceramic endodontic cements.
Below you will find my considerations:
Introduction
- First, I suggest to the authors define what bioceramic cements are. It is assumed that the reader knows what the term "BC" (bioceramic) is and theri related properties.
- I also suggest defining the main chemical and biological characteristics of bioceramic cements.
- In principle, the introduction is too scarce and with few citations to better define the endodontic background about BC sealers and justify the realization of this interesting study.
Materials and methods
- When a product is mentioned for the first time in the text, all commercial notes (name, manufacturer, state, etc) must be specified in brackets. Include this information in the introduction please.
- Adseal: it is not explained in the least what it is but, above all, why consider using an epoxy/calcium phosphate-based resin cement to compare two bioceramic sealers? Do you think epoxy cements are the gold standard in the endodontic field nowadays?
- Setting time: it would be advisable to graphically show the indentation test and the type of devices used.
Results
- Table 1: it is unclear, the caption does not clarify at all what you have compared statistically.
- Figure 1: I personally believe that changing each measurement into a table would make it more readable.
- Figure 3: SEM images are not all taken at the same magnifications between the various types of cement.
Conclusions
- No reference to the Adseal cement you used as a control.
General consideration
- The text needs to be properly formatted according to the Materials journal guidelines
- The citations in the text must respect the indications given in the guide for authors
- It is necessary to complete the part of the statements with all those listed on the site (possibly write "not applicable")
- the bibliography does not follow the guidelines of the journal. I recommend using the EndNote software and setting the MDPI Materials style.
That said, I find the paper interesting even if it requires a minor revision before its publication.
Thanks again and good luck!
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript about the analysis of the influence of solubility on the chemical and surface properties of bioceramic endodontic cements.
Below you will find my considerations:
Introduction
- First, I suggest to the authors define what bioceramic cements are. It is assumed that the reader knows what the term "BC" (bioceramic) is and theri related properties.
Changes were made. Please check line 45
- I also suggest defining the main chemical and biological characteristics of bioceramic cements.
Changes were made. Please check line 43-54
- In principle, the introduction is too scarce and with few citations to better define the endodontic background about BC sealers and justify the realization of this interesting study
Introduction was updated to further explain bioceramic sealers and justify the interesting of this study.
Materials and methods
- When a product is mentioned for the first time in the text, all commercial notes (name, manufacturer, state, etc) must be specified in brackets. Include this information in the introduction please.
Changes were made. Please check line 45 & 56
- Adseal: it is not explained in the least what it is but, above all, why consider using an epoxy/calcium phosphate-based resin cement to compare two bioceramic sealers? Do you think epoxy cements are the gold standard in the endodontic field nowadays?
In our study, Adseal root canal sealer was used as control group. Information about the composition of this material was written in the material and method section (line # 70). A justification of why this material was used as a control was explained in the discussion section (line # 259)
- Setting time: it would be advisable to graphically show the indentation test and the type of devices used.
Please refer back to the material and method section (line # 73 & 77-79 ) for more information about how the device was used and how the test was done following the standard test method by ADA. Setting time test is usually recorded with hours. For that, adding graphs or illustration to this type of test have no value.
Results
- Table 1: it is unclear, the caption does not clarify at all what you have compared statistically.
Please refer to the footnote written under the table for further understanding of the greatest significancy, lowest significancy, and no significancy between the three tested materials.
- Figure 1: I personally believe that changing each measurement into a table would make it more readable.
I believe that table alone will be more confusing to the reader. We supported the graphs with tables under each to be clearer and more understandable. The mean and SD of all data were described in the tables including the comparison and significancy of all tested sealers.
- Figure 3: SEM images are not all taken at the same magnifications between the various types of cement.
The images were updated according to reviewer’s recommendation. The images of each raw have the same magnification.Conclusions
- No reference to the Adseal cement you used as a control.
Please refer back to the discussion section (line # 259) to justify the use of Adseal as a control
General consideration
- The text needs to be properly formatted according to the Materials journal guidelines
- The citations in the text must respect the indications given in the guide for authors
- It is necessary to complete the part of the statements with all those listed on the site (possibly write "not applicable")
- the bibliography does not follow the guidelines of the journal. I recommend using the EndNote software and setting the MDPI Materials style.
Please note that we are submitting the paper in “Applied science journal “and not “Materials Journal”. Guidelines of this journal were followed. We used the template that was posted by the journal. Editorial office did not comment on the format or citation style. If editorial assistant find that we are unfollowing the guidelines, please let us know.
That said, I find the paper interesting even if it requires a minor revision before its publication.
Thanks again and good luck!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Congratulation, it is an excellent work. The manuscript is well documented with relevant references. The experimental part is well designed and organized with relevant obtained results. SEM images with EDX spectra are excellent. All experimental results are well interpreted, discussed, and compared to the data available into the literature. The conclusions are in good agreement with the experimental results. Some minor corrections are necessary according to the comments below:
Title: The word ,,Characterization” from the title should be removed and the title should be ,,Impact of Water Solubility on Chemical Composition and Surface of Two Generation of BC Root Canal Sealers”
Lines 175 – 176: The term ,,homogenous amorphous structure” is improper without XRD investigation to prove if it is amorphous or crystalline. Therefore it must be replaced with the term ,,homogenous structure”.
Figure 3: The scale bars of SEM images are weak and the values are almost unreadable. The scale bars must be improved with a thicker line and bigger font.
Ref 13: must be completed with ,, ASTM C191-13”
Author Response
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Congratulation, it is an excellent work. The manuscript is well documented with relevant references. The experimental part is well designed and organized with relevant obtained results. SEM images with EDX spectra are excellent. All experimental results are well interpreted, discussed, and compared to the data available into the literature. The conclusions are in good agreement with the experimental results. Some minor corrections are necessary according to the comments below:
Thank you for your compliment, I really appreciate your time and effort in revising the paper.
Title: The word ,,Characterization” from the title should be removed and the title should be ,,Impact of Water Solubility on Chemical Composition and Surface of Two Generation of BC Root Canal Sealers”
Change was done- please check Lines 175 – 176: The term ,,homogenous amorphous structure” is improper without XRD investigation to prove if it is amorphous or crystalline. Therefore it must be replaced with the term ,,homogenous structure”.
Change were done- please check
Figure 3: The scale bars of SEM images are weak and the values are almost unreadable. The scale bars must be improved with a thicker line and bigger font.
Ref 13: must be completed with ,, ASTM C191-13”
Change were done- please check
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
