Cytotoxicity of Silver-Containing Coatings Used in Dentistry, a Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments

The article is informative and can be accepted after minor corrections. Few corrections are suggested below.

1.       Please remove references from the abstract.

2.       Line 44: Definition of nanoparticles is ambiguous. Not only the length, but any two or three dimensions could be in 1-100 nm range. Please rephrase the sentence.

3.       Line 49: Please use AgNPs instead of silver nanoparticles.

4.       Line 57: “may prove toxic to i.e. HGFs” here the use of i.e. is unnecessary. Rewrite the sentence with clear wording.

5.       Table 1 and flow chart, more or less provides the same information. In my opinion, only one of these should be included with combined information.

6.       Line 145: Use RoB instead of full word in the heading 5.1.

7.       Authors should refer to Table2 in the text at Line 155.

8.       In table 2: The study done by Silvia et al. Publication year is wrong. The numbers 1 and 3 are hiding behind the circles. Please make it visible.

9.       Table numbering is wrong. Table 6 is mentioned after table 2. Please recheck.

10.   The text in section 5.2. GRADE analysis should come first and then the Table should follow.

11.   Line 312: The terms like YSZ should be written in full at first for the convenience of the readers. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

      I would like to thank the review for a thorough reading of the manuscript and valuable comments. 

1. Please remove references from the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

1. Line 44: Definition of nanoparticles is ambiguous. Not only the length, but any two or three dimensions could be in 1-100 nm range. Please rephrase the sentence.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

1. Line 49: Please use AgNPs instead of silver nanoparticles.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

1. Line 57: “may prove toxic to i.e. HGFs” here the use of i.e. is unnecessary. Rewrite the sentence with clear wording.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

1. Table 1 and flow chart, more or less provides the same information. In my opinion, only one of these should be included with combined information.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment, I have removed table one.

1. Line 145: Use RoB instead of full word in the heading 5.1.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

1. Authors should refer to Table2 in the text at Line 155.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

1. In table 2: The study done by Silvia et al. Publication year is wrong. The numbers 1 and 3 are hiding behind the circles. Please make it visible.

Response 8: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

1. Table numbering is wrong. Table 6 is mentioned after table 2. Please recheck.

Response 9: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

1. The text in section 5.2. GRADE analysis should come first and then the Table should follow.

Response 10: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

1. Line 312: The terms like YSZ should be written in full at first for the convenience of the readers. 

Response 11: Thank you for your comment, I have corrected the error.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      Including all of the author's email after affiliation with initials if more than one for the same affiliation except for corresponding authors based on MDPI format.

2.      Please make sure the authors have been followed Prisma 2020.

3.      The abstract section should be enhanced to include quantitative data.

4.      As your abstract's final sentence, include a "take-home" message.

5.      Put the keywords in a new order based on alphabetical order.

6.      The Reviewer do not see the novel in the present review article. My examination revealed that several similar previous publications appear to appropriately address the issues you have brought up in the current submission related to coatings in dentistry. Please emphasize it more advance in the introduction section if there are any more truly something really new.

7.      The last paragraph of the introduction section should be the objective of the present review.

8.      Other than in vitro, cytotoxic effect in the implant would be predict the indication through in silico study. The introduction and/or discussion part of an article should contain this crucial information. In addition, to support this explanation, the MDPI-suggested reference should be included as follows: Jamari J, Ammarullah MI, Santoso G, Sugiharto S, Supriyono T, Heide E van der. In Silico Contact Pressure of Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Implant with Different Materials Subjected to Gait Loading. Metals (Basel). 2022;12(8):1241.

9.      The authors should use three main databases for literature source, there are Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed. Please include Scopus and remove Embase and Medline. It is mandatory issue and should be addressed by the authors.

10.   The limitation of the current review must be included at the end of the discussion section.

11.   Express the conclusion in the form of a paragraph rather than in the current form, that is point by point.

12.   Mention further research in the conclusion section.

13.   The reference should be given additional literature from the recent five years for enriching it. MDPI literature is highly recommended.

14.   In the entire manuscript, the authors occasionally constructed paragraphs with just one or two phrases, which made the explanation difficult to understand. To make their explanation a full paragraph, the authors should expand it. It is advised to use at least three sentences in a paragraph, with the primary sentence coming first and the supporting sentences coming after. For example, line 176-180.

15.   Due to grammatical and linguistic style issues, the authors should proofread the manuscript. For this issue, the authors would utilize the MDPI English editing service.

16.   Please review and confirm that the writers followed the MDPI format exactly, edit the current form, and recheck in addition to the other issues that have been mentioned. For example table typesetting is not appropriate.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

I would like to thank the reviewer for a thorough reading of the manuscript and valuable comments. I have added an attachment.

Kind Regards

Marta Gawlik-Maj

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The present work is recommended to accept.