Dental Surface Conditioning Techniques to Increase the Micromechanical Retention to Fiberglass Posts: A Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review report

 

Dental Surface Conditioning Techniques to Increase the Micromechanical Retention to Fiberglass Posts: A Literature Review

 

Brief summary

 

In this manuscript, Paulina Leticia Moreno-Sánchez and co-authors have reviewed how dentin conditioners improve the adhesion between glass fiber post and root canal dentin from the in-vitro studies as well as the activation method and irrigant.

 

General comments

A manuscript provides a wide range of information from selected articles that would be attractive to readers. However, the quality of a literature review is quite low because it is not a systematic review and meta-analysis.

• It seems that the authors tried to perform a systematic review, but the manuscript turned out to be a literature review. The manuscript comprises a search strategy, selection criteria, and search results. However, these systematic methods were not relevant to subsequent parts of the manuscript. As this is not a systematic review, I do not think it is necessary to describe this part in detail.

• Please keep the objective of this review in mind. 

• Due to the excessive length of the review, but only 72 references, some paragraphs do not seem relevant.

Abstract

• Please shorten the abstract introduction since it is not appealing to readers who have background on this topic. It should be 350–400 words long. Keep it simple and present what this paper found out.

• Line 41: What is PIPS?

Introduction

• This part is too long. Please shorten it.

• Point out the percentage of cementation failure due to poor mechanical retention between glass fiber posts and root canal dentin.

• Try to connect the poor cementation to a clinical situation or a case of success and failure. In order to support the idea of this paper, find additional clinical papers.

• Is there a literature review available on this topic? If not, what is the gap in knowledge in this area? How significant is this literature review?

• Line 71: What is the sealant?

Method

• Why is it necessary to include only papers that employ SEM or POBS methods? Please provide the reason.

• Table 1: Why do you have to select these papers and show them since it is a literature review?

• Since 24 papers have been included, there is no analysis and criticism after this.

Result

• It would be better to summarize most information in the table instead of long paragraphs. When it comes to the first paper, how does it use acid and activation methods?

• Where is SEM result after using these dentin conditioner or activation methods?

• Point out the pros and cons of each method.

Future direction

• What is the ideal properties of a dentin conditioner?

Conclusion

• Please shorten it. What will the authors recommend for clinicians?

• What are the limitations of this review?

 

 

Major modifications to the English language are highly recommended. Numerous sentences are lengthy and redundant.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciated your observations and suggestions to improve this manuscript.

General comments

A manuscript provides a wide range of information from selected articles that would be attractive to readers. However, the quality of a literature review is quite low because it is not a systematic review and meta-analysis.

• It seems that the authors tried to perform a systematic review, but the manuscript turned out to be a literature review. The manuscript comprises a search strategy, selection criteria, and search results. However, these systematic methods were not relevant to subsequent parts of the manuscript. As this is not a systematic review, I do not think it is necessary to describe this part in detail.

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion, the search strategy, selection criteria and search results were eliminated. A rearragment of the manuscript was reallized.

• Please keep the objective of this review in mind. 
• Due to the excessive length of the review, but only 72 references, some paragraphs do not seem relevant.

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; we attend this comment and summarize and edition of the information was realized.

Abstract

• Please shorten the abstract introduction since it is not appealing to readers who have background on this topic. It should be 350–400 words long. Keep it simple and present what this paper found out.

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion. This comment was attended and an edition of the abstract was performed.

• Line 41: What is PIPS?

RESPONSE: We appreciated your observation. The meaning was placed

Introduction

• This part is too long. Please shorten it.

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion. This comment was attended and an edition of the abstract was performed.

• Point out the percentage of cementation failure due to poor mechanical retention between glass fiber posts and root canal dentin.

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; the information was included.

• Try to connect the poor cementation to a clinical situation or a case of success and failure. In order to support the idea of this paper, find additional clinical papers.

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; the information was included.

• Is there a literature review available on this topic? If not, what is the gap in knowledge in this area? How significant is this literature review?

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; the information was included.

• Line 71: What is the sealant?

 RESPONSE: We appreciated your observation. This concept was eliminated.

Method

• Why is it necessary to include only papers that employ SEM or POBS methods? Please provide the reason.

RESPONSE: We appreciated this comment, and the justification to include research articles that use these methods was included in the manuscript.

• Table 1: Why do you have to select these papers and show them since it is a literature review?

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; this table was eliminated

• Since 24 papers have been included, there is no analysis and criticism after this.

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; he search strategy, selection criteria and search results were eliminated.

Result

• It would be better to summarize most information in the table instead of long paragraphs. RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; tables were included to summarize information.

• When it comes to the first paper, how does it use acid and activation methods?

RESPONSE: This comment was attended, the information was include in each subtopic.

• Where is SEM result after using these dentin conditioner or activation methods?

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; a table with this information was included.

• Point out the pros and cons of each method.

RESPONSE: This comment was attended and included in the discussion.

Future direction

• What is the ideal properties of a dentin conditioner?

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion. This comment was attended and included

Conclusion

• Please shorten it. What will the authors recommend for clinicians?

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; this information was included.

• What are the limitations of this review?

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; this information was included.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Major modifications to the English language are highly recommended. Numerous sentences are lengthy and redundant.

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; an edition of the manuscript was performed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aimed to review the literature on the different techniques for dentin bonding to glass fiber posts. It can be seen that a lot of effort was put into the preparation of this study. The structure of the manuscript is good and helps the reader to go back and forth into the information. However, some points were highlighted and should be changed before publication.

- what were the criteria for study selection? How did you come from 1056 to 24 studies?

- line 298: there is a word in Spanish (Láser).

- the Conclusion section is extensively lengthy. It seems a summary of the Discussion. The authors could make some topics in accordance with Table 1, summarizing what is best for dentin conditioning without activation, with activation, and with laser irradiation.

 

 

Please, see the comments to the authors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciated your observations and suggestions to improve this manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aimed to review the literature on the different techniques for dentin bonding to glass fiber posts. It can be seen that a lot of effort was put into the preparation of this study. The structure of the manuscript is good and helps the reader to go back and forth into the information. However, some points were highlighted and should be changed before publication.

- what were the criteria for study selection? How did you come from 1056 to 24 studies?

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion, the search strategy, selection criteria and search results were eliminated. A rearragment of the manuscript was reallized.

- line 298: there is a word in Spanish (Láser).

RESPONSE: The word was changed to English.

- the Conclusion section is extensively lengthy. It seems a summary of the Discussion. The authors could make some topics in accordance with Table 1, summarizing what is best for dentin conditioning without activation, with activation, and with laser irradiation.

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion, the table 1 was eliminated for other reviewer request and a general recommendation to clinics was included.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Please see the attachment below.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciated your observations and suggestions to improve this manuscript.

 

I appreciate your concise approach in reviewing the literature regarding this topic. The manuscript is well written and provides all the necessary information to the future readers. However, I would like to point out some minor flaws in the presented manuscript.

 

• In the final sections (Future Directions, Discussion) avoid the use of first – person phrases such as “we believe” or “we can summarize”. Passive phrases should be used instead.

 

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; these phrases were modified.

 

• References are not cited as recommended by ACS style (see the guidelines) I find the presented manuscript suitable for publication after suggested revisions. Kind regards.

 

RESPONSE: We appreciated your suggestion; the cited style was modified to ACS.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx