Mechanisms of Premature Fracture in Modular Neck Stems Made of CoCrMo/Ti6Al4V and Ti6Al4V/Ti6Al4V Alloy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Premature failure mechanisms of CoCrMo neck/Ti6Al4V stem (after 2 years), and Ti6Al4V neck/Ti6Al4V stem (after 7 years) retrievals were discussed in this article. The main contribution of the current study lies in the fact that the performance of modular neck-stem made of dissimilar alloys (CoCrMo/Ti6Al4V) is inferior to that made of the same alloy (Ti6Al4V/Ti6Al4V) due to enhanced corrosion in the former. Although, CoCrMo/Ti6Al4V is expected to provide better performance considering mechanical and tribological properties. 

Fracture mechanisms of Ti6Al4V neck/Ti6Al4V stem were well documented. Hence, the novelty of the present research lies on failure analyses of CoCrMo neck/Ti6Al4V stem. Authors have concluded ‘fretting, corrosion, and fatigue’; however, the evidences for fretting and corrosion of CoCrMo neck/Ti6Al4V stem are insufficient in the present article. In addition, additional evidences related to the fatigue failure of CoCrMo neck/Ti6Al4V stem are also desirable.

The article may be resubmitted after significant improvement, mainly additional evidences in supports of conclusions drawn here are required.

 

A. Ref. 1 was not cited. Citation started with Ref. 2. In general, reference were not number sequentially.

B. Figs. 2b and 5b– Use only boarder lines to demarcate but do not the color different zones.  Authors may incorporate associated schematic diagrams without diminishing scientific importance of these images.

C. Figs. 2 – Relatively high magnification SEM images corresponding to different zones should be included. These are considered essential to support author’s summary to (i) crack initiation size, (ii) Biological corrosion, (iii) overload fracture, etc. [Similar to Fig. 8 for Ti6Al4V/ Ti6Al4V]

D. Provide evidences of fretting and corrosion.

E. There are many editing mistakes in this draft. Polishing of the English language is required at several places. 

 

There are many editing mistakes in this draft. Polishing of the English language is required at several places. 

 

Author Response

Please, find the answers 

Regards, Monika Jenko corresponding author 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Despite the interesting and important topic of the studies, the statistical and research methods chosen are not appropriate for the scope of the journal.  I would recommend submitting the paper to a more medically oriented journal after major revision. The coating topic is only lightly touched upon.

Author Response

Distinguished reviewer,  thank you for your valuable comments.

We kindly ask you to read the corrected version of our manuscript again and find out how important    knowledge of biomaterials  and physicochemical phenomena on the interface between biosystems and biomaterials is

From my point of view is the knowledge the base for Toward Sustainability through Bio-Based Materials at the Interfaces with Living Systems

Best regards, 

Monika Jenko, 

corresponding author

Reviewer 3 Report

In this article, the authors investigated the mechanisms of premature fracture in modular neck stems made of two alloys. Comprehensive characterizations and analysis have been performed. In general, the manuscript is well prepared and the conclusion is supported by the experimental and results. However, there are still some issues to be addressed. A moderate revision is suggested before its acceptance.

1.         The guidance words in abstract should be removed.

2.         More solid data should be added in abstract section.

3.         The separation of each keyword should be uniform.

4.         It is better to combine the last two paragraphs together in introduction section.

5.         More details on the alloys should be provided, such as composition.

6.         It is suggested that the authors make an in-depth analysis and discussion of alloys and elicit scientific questions. The point is to clarify the importance and value of the text. Related literature on thermal treatment, for instance, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 43, 9 (2023): 4114-4123; J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 43, 2 (2023): 612-620; could be summarized and commented in introduction.

7.         There are too many too old references, which is better to be deleted or replaced with recent articles to show the novelty of this work.

8.         There are still some typos and grammar issues in the manuscript, especially the use of blank space. Authors should carefully recheck the whole manuscript.

9.         Three-line tables should be applied for a better scientific expression.

10.     Some figures should be modified with a better readability, especially the quite small texts.

11.     The figures should not be placed in tables.

12.     Authors should recheck the references to make sure full information is provided, such as volume, pages, etc. In addition, the format of references should be uniform.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Distinguish reviewer, please find attached our answers

Best regards 

Monika Jenko corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Response and associated modifications against the primary concerns of Reviewer#1 are largely satisfactory.

 

However, the caption of Fig. 5 is incomplete. It is necessary to note that the images in Fig. 5 correspond to Zone-A in Fig. 4.

I suggest that Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7 should preferably be merged into one full page Fig; similar marking style as in Fig. 10 may be followed in the new figure.  

 

 

Discussion should be improved. Surprise not to find any citation in this section. A few similar reports should be cited and discussed. 

 

Polishing of the English language is required in some places. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

However, the caption of Fig. 5 is incomplete. It is necessary to note that the images in Fig. 5 correspond to Zone-A in Fig. 4. 

I suggest that Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7 should preferably be merged into one full page Fig; similar marking style as in Fig. 10 may be followed in the new figure.  

Distinguish Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your valuable comments. According to your suggestion we have rearranged Figures completely as suggested. 

Discussion should be improved. Surprise not to find any citation in this section. A few similar reports should be cited and discussed. 

Thank you for your valuable comments regarding discussion. We have included the most important similar reports, which are cited and compared with our results.

 

Corresponding author Monika Jenko

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors should treated reviewer's comments seriously. Do not only provide responses but no corresponding revisions in the manuscript. 

1. Three-line tables should be applied for a better scientific expression. Please revise in the mansucript.

2. Scale bars should be added in Fig. 2, 3, 9 and 10a.

3. It is necessary to provide conclusion with several short paragraphs. Please rewritten this section in a more logic way after referring some high impact papers.

4.  The  in-depth analysis and discussion of alloys and elicit scientific questions should be supported with some recent articles: J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 43, 9 (2023): 4114-4123; J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 43, 2 (2023): 612-620; could be summarized and commented in introduction.

5. Authors responded that they rechecked all the references. However, many of the references are lacked of full information, such as pages, volumes in ref. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and many more.

6. There are only 18 references, and most of them are old. Please cite more recent references to show the nolvety of this work.

Please carefully respond these comments, and make the corrections in the revised manuscript by marking the changes with yellow background.  

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Authors should treat reviewer's comments seriously. Do not only provide responses but no corresponding revisions in the manuscript. 

1. Three-line tables should be applied for a better scientific expression. Please revise in the manuscript.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, we hope that three-line tables, applied in the paper are now Ok.

2. Scale bars should be added in Fig. 2, 3, 9 and 10a.

Thank you for your comment on scale bars. We have added scale bars in all Figures you requested.

3. It is necessary to provide conclusion with several short paragraphs. Please rewritten this section in a more logic way after referring some high impact papers.

Thank you for your comments to provide conclusions with several short paragraphs. We have rewritten the section in a more logic way.

4. The in-depth analysis and discussion of alloys and elicit scientific questions should be supported with some recent articles: J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 43, 9 (2023): 4114-4123; J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 43, 2 (2023): 612-620; could be summarized and commented in introduction.

Thank you for your comment, we have added very recent published articles from our research field.

5. Authors responded that they rechecked all the references. However, many of the references are lacked full information, such as pages, volumes in ref. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and many more.

Thank you for your comment on references. We have used the Mendeley reference manager and rechecked data bases.

6. There are only 18 references, and most of them are old. Please cite more recent references to show the novelty of this work.

Thank you for your remark. We have cited more references, namely 33, some of them are published very recently, but a few of them are old, but with very important findings.

Please carefully respond these comments and make the corrections in the revised manuscript by marking the changes with yellow background.

Dear distinguished reviewer, we have marked all the changes with yellow background. 

 

Corresponding author

Monika Jenko

  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Satisfactory 

Some minor corrections should be performed during proof checking stage. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors still did not treat reviewer's comments seriously. There are still many issues requiring revisions. The manuscript is out of the standards of this journal.