Repair Bond Strength of Two Shadeless Resin Composites Bonded to Various CAD-CAM Substrates with Different Surface Treatments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the manuscript focused on repair bond strength of OMNICHROMA and Charisma Diamond ONE resin composites bonded to variable CAD-CAMsubstrates with different surface treatments is relevant to the scope of Coatings.

However, the content of the manuscript raises doubts due to the use of brand names of the tested products in both the title and the entire content of the manuscript. Comparing the properties of two commercial products instead of comparing different substances/compositions makes this manuscript a promotional publication. Of course, trade names may be given in the description of the materials used. However, in the body of the entire manuscript, the results should be presented and discussed, taking into account differences in the chemical composition or structure of the tested substances/compositions. The research methodology described in the manuscript is correctly described and applied. The obtained results are also correctly presented except for the SEM results. All micrographs should be at the same magnification to allow proper comparison of the images obtained. The discussion of the results and conclusions concern only the effect of surface preparation on bond strength. The conclusions also indicate the trade name of the product for which the better results were obtained, which is accepted in promotional, not scientific publications.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please revised through the manuscript. the abstract is not a practical form where the subsection is inserted.

2. please check the reference form since the style is not follow the journal standard.

3. add figure related to schematic study

4. fig 2 is not quantitative form but the author make it be quantitative form. how this work? for example, how the cohesive in repair take 20% of the failure percentages?

5. conclusion should be revised at all. the present form is not a conclusion, rather than just the narration.

need to check thru the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "coatings-2443659" by Al Otaibi et al. reported Repair Bond Strength of OMNICHROMA and Charisma Diamond ONE resin composites bonded to variable CADCAMsubstrates with different surface treatments. After review, this study is currently unpublishable. The authors have to make major changes. The authors should refer to the following comments to improve their work:


General comments

a. Prepare the manuscript according to the correct journal format (abstract, references, reference number in the text, Results, and Discussion). It is recommended to check the correct format of the journal before submitting the manuscript.

b. Please add or replace more up-to-date references.

c. Please provide images of the prepared samples (In the Materials and Methods section).

d. The language of the manuscript should be checked.



Specific comments

Abstract:

a. Please rewrite the abstract (according to the journal format). In the abstract, only briefly mention the method and the results obtained.

b. The term CAD-CAM is abbreviated in the abstract without explanation, please revise and rewrite.


Introduction:

a. Review the results of several other studies in the introduction and explain the difference between this study and the from others.



Results and Discussion:
 
a. Avoid separating the results and discussion sections, as this will confuse the reader.

b. The discussion section needs a major revision. Many sections are written in such a way that the reader feels as if they are reading a review article. I strongly recommend that you avoid comparing the obtained results with the results of other articles. Although there is no problem, provided that you have fully explained the results with scientific reasons before comparing them. It seems that instead of evaluating and explaining the results, the authors only compare them with other results (other articles). Unfortunately, there has been no discussion and it is only a data report and comparison with the results of other articles. Please improve the discussion. Finally, first, explain the obtained results with scientific reasons and then compare them with other results (other articles).



Conclusions:

The conclusion should be improved.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the manuscript focused on Repair Bond Strength of two shadeless resin composites bonded to various CAD-CAM substrates with different surface treatments is relevant to the scope of Coatings.

The authors have introduced possible changes regarding the use of trade names. The title of the article has been changed, which now does not raise objections.

The research methodology described in the manuscript is correctly described and applied. The obtained results are also correctly presented. SEM images were placed at appropriate magnifications.

Currently, the content of the manuscript is acceptable.

Minor editing of English language required.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form.