Comparison of Orbital Reconstructive Effect between Customized Orbital Implants Using Three-Dimensional Printed Templates and Conventional Manual-Bending Implants in Blowout Fracture Surgery
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached review report.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Paper is well written, minor mistakes.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your interest in this paper and valuable comments. We hope that our responses satisfactorily address your concerns (please see attached file).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper introduces the comparison of orbital reconstructive effect between customized orbital implants using three-dimensional printed templates and conventional manual-bending implants in blowout fracture surgery. The results show that the orbital volume restoration effect had superior surgical outcomes for large fractures using the customized orbital implant with 3D-printed templates compared with manual-bending implants. The idea is interesting, and the comparisons are generally described clearly. Therefore, I suggest acceptance after addressing the following minor concerns.
1.The authors mentioned “3D-printing technology has recently come into the spotlight. This technology allows surgeons to design implants that closely fit the shapes and surfaces of the fracture sites of specific individuals.”. The more state of art papers are suggested to add in the revised version, e.g., [1] DOI: 10.34133/2021/1532103; [2] DOI: 10.34133/cbsystems.0043; [3] DOI: 10.34133/2021/9864212.
2. The sample size of manual group is almost twice over the 3D group, which clearly influence the standard deviation of the results. Could the authors provide more description of the sample selection?
3.How many parameters that influence the final results of precise restoration of the fractured orbital structure? What are the key effects, and how 3D-printed templates can bring to patients compared with traditional manual-bending implants? The authors are recommended to provide more description.
4.How this paper’s comparison of three-dimensional printed templates and conventional manual-bending implants can benefit current blowout fracture surgery. The authors are recommended to provide more discussion.
good
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your interest in this paper and valuable comments. We hope that our responses satisfactorily address your concerns (please see attached file).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all comments raised by reviewers, I think it's ready to be published.
