Formulation and Characterization of Experimental Adhesive Systems Charged with Different Concentrations of Nanofillers: Physicomechanical Properties and Marginal Gap Formation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Before the publicaion,some minor reviews should be done/issues explained:

1. Authors define R as a ratio of integrated area at 1638 cm-1/integrated area at 1608 cm-1 in FT-IR spectra. It is however known that the strict value of peak corresponding to the given group may different from those, e.g. for C=C it is assumed that the peak is in the region 1648-1638 cm^-1. Have the Authors taken this fact into account (it does not arise from text)?

2. In Eq. 2 (and 3?) using of number ("1") as a symbolof quantity ( span distance) is highly misleading and should not be applied. Except it was l (a letter) - then this symbol should be italicized.

3. Eq.6: doesthe symbol A' in the denominator is the same as A - cross-sectional area of the adhesive area? Please standardize.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank for the interest and the important suggestions about our manuscript. We addressed all modifications requested by the reviewer and tried to explain those we believe important to be unchanged. All modifications are in red color.

 

1. Authors define R as a ratio of integrated area at 1638 cm-1/integrated area at 1608 cm-1 in FT-IR spectra. It is however known that the strict value of peak corresponding to the given group may different from those, e.g. for C=C it is assumed that the peak is in the region 1648-1638 cm^-1. Have the Authors taken this fact into account (it does not arise from text)?

Response: Yes, we know that the stiffness of the bond, which is a function of its force constant, may interfere with the interaction between the IR radiation and the vibration of a specific chemical bond, providing a range of values for peak or even integrated area bellow the band . However, a powerful FTIR spectrometer (Alpha-P/Platinum ATR Module, Bruker Optics in our case) is totally able to overcome this phenomenon and provide the representative value of the peak or integrated area of the chemical bond. This was not stated in the text because it is an automatic function of the equipment. In other words, we cannot   interfere with this. Based on this explanation, we kindly ask the reviewer to accept the DC% calculation as presented.

 

2. In Eq. 2 (and 3?) using of number ("1") as a symbolof quantity ( span distance) is highly misleading and should not be applied. Except it was l(a letter) - then this symbol should be italicized.

Response: Indeed, it was the letter l, and they were italicized in the text, as recommended

 

3. Eq.6: does the symbol A' in the denominator is the same as A - cross-sectional area of the adhesive area? Please standardize.

Response: The “,” in the text is a comma. It was given a space to avoid confusing the reader.

We hope, these explanations and changes are suitable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Upon reviewing the manuscript titled "Formulation and characterization of experimental adhesive systems charged with different concentrations of nanofillers: physicomechanical properties and marginal gap formation," I found it to address a relevant question within dental materials research. However, the article requires several revisions for further consideration. The manuscript currently lacks specific details regarding the sample size used in the experiments, which is essential for assessing the statistical robustness of the study. Additionally, the conclusions are not clearly demarcated from the discussion section; a distinct conclusion section would enhance the clarity and impact of the findings. Typographical inconsistencies are present, notably the use of capital letters for author names within the discussion text, which should be corrected. There is a need of clarification of the p-value thresholds across various analyses/tables (p<.05, p<.01, p<.001). Lastly, the literature cited includes several outdated references. Incorporating more recent studies would strengthen the current relevance and context of the research. Refinement in these areas would greatly improve the manuscript's contribution to the field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank for the interest and the important suggestions about our manuscript. We addressed all modifications requested by the reviewer and tried to explain those we believe important to be unchanged. All modifications are in red color.

 

1.The manuscript currently lacks specific details regarding the sample size used in the experiments, which is essential for assessing the statistical robustness of the study.

 

The authors fully agree with the reviewer that the sample size calculation is a matter

Response: Indeed, the authors verified that the size of the cavities for the adhesive interface analysis, was not described. So, this information was added in the Material and Methods Section. For the other properties, the sample size was described.

 

1. Additionally, the conclusions are not clearly demarcated from the discussion section; a distinct conclusion section would enhance the clarity and impact of the findings.

Response: As suggested, a distinct conclusions section was added in the text.

 

2. Typographical inconsistencies are present, notably the use of capital letters for author names within the discussion text, which should be corrected.

Asnwer: This was corrected in the text, as suggested.

 

3. There is a need of clarification of the p-value thresholds across various analyses/tables (p<.05, p<.01, p<.001).

Response: Indeed, it was verified that the tables 4 and 5 did not present the p value. So, this information was added to these tables.

 

4. Lastly, the literature cited includes several outdated references. Incorporating more recent studies would strengthen the current relevance and context of the research.

Response: We respect the comment of the reviewer and appreciate their insight. The authors made a new intensive search in PubMed, but no new studies using silica as nanoparticles in dental adhesives systems that could enrich the discussion or introduction sections were found. There is a narrative review dated from 2023 that reports some studies with nanoparticles, but none with silica nanoparticles (Naguib G, Maghrabi AA, Mira AI, Mously HA, Hajjaj M, Hamed MT. Influence of inorganic nanoparticles on dental materials' mechanical properties. A narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2023 Nov 21;23(1):897). This reinforces the importance of the presente study in this area. However, if the reviewer have some suggestion of specific studies, we readily can analyse and add them to discussion or introdution sections.

We hope, these explanations and changes are suitable.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this work is to formulate and characterize experimental dental adhesives charged with different concentrations of nanofillers. The researchers evaluated the physicomechanical properties using appropriate testing methods and assessed the performance of the adhesives in class I cavities using two different dental composites. The inclusion of multiple outcome measures provides a comprehensive understanding of the adhesive's behavior. Some concerns and questions about the manuscript are listed as follows.

 

 

1.       In the abstract, what’s the AE0, AE7.5 and AE15 represent for?

 

2.       The naming conventions used for the groups in the study are inconsistent.

 

3.       There are some typographical errors in the manuscript, such as in Figure 2 where "AE7,5CON" should be corrected to "EA7.5CON."

 

4.       It is important to include detailed information and characterization of nanosized silica used in the study.

 

5.       Why the authors choose the silica nanoparticles with a size of 50nm?

 

6.       A limitation of the study is the absence of information regarding the long-term occlusal and mesial marginal gaps of the restorations. The evaluation conducted in the study focused only on the immediate properties of the adhesives and restorations, and it would be valuable to investigate their performance over an extended period.

 

7.       The study did not address the cytotoxicity or biocompatibility of the experimental adhesives, which is an important aspect to consider in dental restorative materials.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

First of all, the authors would like to thank for the interest and the important suggestions about our manuscript. We addressed all modifications requested by the reviewer and tried to explain those we believe important to be unchanged. All modifications are in red color.

 

 

1. In the abstract, what’s the AE0, AE7.5 and AE15 represent for?

Response: There were typing errors that were corrected in the abstract section

 

2. The naming conventions used for the groups in the study are inconsistent.

Response: The naming groups from table 5 were corrected, following the initial naming conventions for the groups. The figure 2 was also changed for correcting this inconsistency.

 

3. There are some typographical errors in the manuscript, such as in Figure 2 where "AE7,5CON" should be corrected to "EA7.5CON."

Response: The figure 2 was also changed for correcting these inconsistencies.

 

4. It is important to include detailed information and characterization of nanosized silica used in the study.

Response: The manufacturer and the size of this particle were added in the Material and Methods section.

 

5. Why the authors choose the silica nanoparticles with a size of 50nm?

Response: This size of nanoparticles is available for our research group, and we would like to avoid an agglomeration of them if it was used smaller silica nanoparticles. In the discussion section this question is addressed, being found studies in the literature using larger or smaller nanoparticles.

 

6. A limitation of the study is the absence of information regarding the long-term occlusal and mesial marginal gaps of the restorations. The evaluation conducted in the study focused only on the immediate properties of the adhesives and restorations, and it would be valuable to investigate their performance over an extended period.

Response: This is an interesting consideration for new studies. For now, the aim of the study was only to investigate the immediate properties. We plan to extend this study and, certainly, we will investigate all properties over time.

 

7. The study did not address the cytotoxicity or biocompatibility of the experimental adhesives, which is an important aspect to consider in dental restorative materials.

Response: We respect the comment of the reviewer and appreciate their insight. However, the authors believe that the cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of the experimental adhesives of the present study would not be very different from the current adhesives available in the market, as it was used only substances and particles that are usually present in them. So, in this moment, with all respect to the reviewer, we did not judge necessary to study these properties. However, we will consider investigating these properties for a next study, avoiding any question with respect to this.

We hope, these explanations and changes are suitable

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very interesting and it gives new informations about the adhesive systems. The introduction is descriptive and up to date, and it describes very well the criticism of the first phase of restorative in dentistry. The methods are clear and the methods could be made by other goup of research. The figures and tables are clear and the results very descriptive. The discussion is complete. The manuscript could be accepted in the present form.

Author Response

The manuscript is very interesting and it gives new informations about the adhesive systems. The introduction is descriptive and up to date, and it describes very well the criticism of the first phase of restorative in dentistry. The methods are clear and the methods could be made by other goup of research. The figures and tables are clear and the results very descriptive. The discussion is complete. The manuscript could be accepted in the present form.

The authors appreciate the interest in our manuscript. Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my question. I have no further comments.