Research Progress on the Preparation Process and Material Structure of 3D-Printed Dental Implants and Their Clinical Applications
and Juan Liu *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report on
A systematic review of 3D printing processes for new dental implant and their clinical applications
The topic of this paper is interesting and up-to-date, but unfortunately its form and content does not manage to value the idea. The manuscript it is not clear, nor presented in a well-structured manner. It contains a lot of information that is not related to the main topic - the 3D Printed dental implants.
It must be said from the very beginning that there is a big discrepancy between the title and the content of the manuscript.
Although the notion of SYSTEMATIC REVIEW appears in the title, the present manuscript is not at all like this, at most it could be classified as a narrative review.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS should use the same structure as research articles and should ensure they conform to the PRISMA guidelines (please read the Instructions).
Authors’ affiliation is incomplete, the Country is missing, and, most important, the Department/Specialization of every author.
The Abstract is too short. It should be an objective representation of the article and should follow the style of structured abstracts but with Background; Methods, Results and Conclusion:
Not all the Keywords are pertinent and specific to the article. You can remove „medical” and „process”; and add 3D printed dental implants
There are a lot of inaccuracies or unclear sentences within the text,which lead to a lack of clarity of the text for a reader who is not familiar with this subject:
1. Introduction
- “In simple terms a dental implant is a restoration consisting of a dental implant and its supporting superstructure…” ???
- “ By connecting to the artificial tooth root, retention and support can be obtained from the artificial tooth root…”
- “Depending on the molding method, the most used 3D printing technology processes are stereolithography apparatus (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), and fused deposition molding (FDM), etc., and the principles and methods of the various processes are not the same”. ( it was about methods, not apparatus …)
- „Many investigations and clinical studies have identified titanium as a reliable biomaterial for oral rehabilitation and reconstruction, while there are other materials including zirconia, polyether ether ketone, and carbon nanotubes, etc., and they are mostly flawed while utilizing their advantages ??
What do you mean??
It is not mentioned which articles were selected for this review (except Table 1 were are only the numbers of the references), from which databases, according to which inclusion or exclusion criteria, from which time period.
2. D printed dental implant technology and surface modification
- the processing flow of SLM is shown in Fig.1.a
Fig.1a and Fig.1b should be inserted into the main text close to their first citation
The all three parts of the fig.1 are too small and unclear. For a better understanding of the three 3D printing methods (2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3), each figure should be larger and placed immediately below the text, or the figures can be removed but the technique should be briefly described in the text.
At the end of 2.1.3. section, the authors said „we have summarized the current studies on these three process methods as shown in Table 1” but in Table 1 are only two methods: SLM and EBM.
Moreover, the rows are staggered and difficult to read in Table 1 and Table 5.
In the Table 2 the situation is even worst.
The 2.2 and 3 Sections present a lot of information, but they are not about the 3D printed dental implants, they are general information and data about majority of dental implants. The large presentation of classification of implants structure, length and diameter is irrelevant for the topic of the manuscript.
The 4th section is even more irrelevant, all this discussion about implant surgery, implant placing stages, postoperative evaluation and patient expectations is more appropriate for a book chapter or a lecture for dental school. The figure 3 may be more appropriate in the Introduction.Or better removed it.
In many places in the text can be found expressions and words that are not used by the dental professionals:
“the implant is inserted into the missing tooth” (pag.12) – how can be possible to insert something into a MISSING tooth if is missing ?? The implant is inserted IN THE PLACE of the missing tooth!
- in fig.4 – “remove the dead tooth and clean the root canal” ???? Dead tooth is not a term used in dentistry, and the root canal is a narrow canal inside the dental root where the dental pulp is placed, not the remaining space after the tooth extraction.
REFERENCES
The cited references are not mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years), out of 131 titles, 64 are older than 5 years. References 18 – 22 are missing the year.
A big amount of the cited references are not relevant for the main topic (3D printed dental implants). For example 8, 41, 68, 109, 111, 113-130
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. The following are our replies to the comments, and the corresponding changes have been highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.
Point 1: The topic of this paper is interesting and up-to-date, but unfortunately its form and content does not manage to value the idea. The manuscript it is not clear, nor presented in a well-structured manner. It contains a lot of information that is not related to the main topic - the 3D Printed dental implants.
It must be said from the very beginning that there is a big discrepancy between the title and the content of the manuscript.
Although the notion of SYSTEMATIC REVIEW appears in the title, the present manuscript is not at all like this, at most it could be classified as a narrative review.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS should use the same structure as research articles and should ensure they conform to the PRISMA guidelines (please read the Instructions).
Response 1: We would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestions, which were extremely helpful. After thinking about and reviewing the title of our manuscript, we decided to change the title to a more appropriate one, and removed the concept of "systematic review". The title is changed to “Research progress on the preparation process and material structure of 3D-printed dental implants and their clinical applications”. Once again, thank you and hope that our revised version will meet the publication requirements.
Point 2: Authors’ affiliation is incomplete, the Country is missing, and, most important, the Department/Specialization of every author.
Response 2: We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for the meticulous examination
of our manuscript. We are deeply aware of the omissions existing in the original text and have made revisions accordingly to the reviewer’ valuable feedback. Specifically, we have supplemented the complete author information. All the authors come from the same department.
Point 3: The Abstract is too short. It should be an objective representation of the article and should follow the style of structured abstracts but with Background; Methods, Results and Conclusion.
Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the expert advice. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and have rewritten the abstract to describe the context in more detail and to further refine the grammar.
Point 4: Not all the Keywords are pertinent and specific to the article. You can remove “medical” and “process”; and add 3D printed dental implants.
Response 4: Thanks to the valuable suggestions, we deleted medical and process from the keywords, added 3D printed dental implants, and re-added them according to the new abstract.
Point 5: There are a lot of inaccuracies or unclear sentences within the text, which lead to a lack of clarity of the text for a reader who is not familiar with this subject.
Response5: We extend our gratitude to the reviewer for the insightful suggestions. In response to your feedback, we have conducted a thorough review of the entire text, rectifying grammatical inaccuracies and refining the language for enhanced clarity and academic rigor.
Point 6: Introduction
- “In simple terms a dental implant is a restoration consisting of a dental implant and its supporting superstructure…” ???
- “By connecting to the artificial tooth root, retention and support can be obtained from the artificial tooth root…”
- “Depending on the molding method, the most used 3D printing technology processes are stereolithography apparatus (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), and fused deposition molding (FDM), etc., and the principles and methods of the various processes are not the same”. (it was about methods, not apparatus …)
- Many investigations and clinical studies have identified titanium as a reliable biomaterial for oral rehabilitation and reconstruction, while there are other materials including zirconia, polyether ether ketone, and carbon nanotubes, etc., and they are mostly flawed while utilizing their advantages ??
What do you mean??
Response 6: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful review and valuable comments. We recognize that there are linguistic errors in the introduction section as well as in the full text, which is an oversight on our part. To correct these deficiencies, we have revised the corresponding sentences to ensure linguistic accuracy and rigor. We look forward to your understanding and acceptance.
Point 7: It is not mentioned which articles were selected for this review (except Table 1 were are only the numbers of the references), from which databases, according to which inclusion or exclusion criteria, from which time period.
Response 7: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We searched PubMed and ScienceDirect for various types of studies and reviews published from January 2000 to May 2024 as a reference and reviewed. In addition, it was our oversight that this paper should have been a narrative review.
Point 8: 3D printed dental implant technology and surface modification
- the processing flow of SLM is shown in Fig.1.a
Fig.1a and Fig.1b should be inserted into the main text close to their first citation
Response 8: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have split Fig.1.a/b/c into Fig.1, Fig.2, and Fig.3, and inserted them below Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3, respectively, making them easier to read and understand.
Point 9: The all three parts of the fig.1 are too small and unclear. For a better understanding of the three 3D printing methods (2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3), each figure should be larger and placed immediately below the text, or the figures can be removed but the technique should be briefly described in the text.
Response 9: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. According to your comments, after adjusting the insertion position of Fig.1 in the manuscript, we adjusted the size of the figures properly, so that the readers can read the figures completely and clearly.
Point 10: At the end of 2.1.3. section, the authors said, we have summarized the current studies on these three process methods as shown in Table 1” but in Table 1 are only two methods: SLM and EBM.
Response 10: We thank the reviewer for the correction. We are sorry for our carelessness. Based on your comments, we have improved the contents of Table 1 and added relevant references.
Point 11: Moreover, the rows are staggered and difficult to read in Table 1 and Table 5. In the Table 2 the situation is even worst.
Response 11: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have made detailed and meticulous adjustments to the problems you pointed out (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 5’s format). Your guidance has greatly helped and improved my work, and We sincerely thank you again for your careful correction.
Point 12: The 2.2 and 3 Sections present a lot of information, but they are not about the 3D printed dental implants, they are general information and data about majority of dental implants. The large presentation of classification of implants structure, length and diameter is irrelevant for the topic of the manuscript.
Response 12: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. For the Section 2.2, we learned that the performance of 3D printed titanium alloy itself is not stable enough, most of the implant will undergo different degrees of surface modification, so we wrote this section to summarize the surface modification methods that can be used for 3D printed implant surface. For the Section 3, it provides an important background and foundation for understanding the design, manufacture and clinical application of 3D printed implants. According to reviewer’ comments, we've polished the manuscript to make it more concise.
Point 13: The 4th section is even more irrelevant, all this discussion about implant surgery, implant placing stages, postoperative evaluation and patient expectations is more appropriate for a book chapter or a lecture for dental school. The figure 3 may be more appropriate in the Introduction. Or better removed it.
Response 13: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. The Section 4 focuses on the analysis of the current clinical status of dental implants, as well as our expansion of the potential mechanisms of dental implant placement. We have removed the irrelevant parts, and the Figure 3 is moved to the Introduction section as Figure 1.
Point 14: In many places in the text can be found expressions and words that are not used by the dental professionals:
“the implant is inserted into the missing tooth” (pag.12) – how can be possible to insert something into a MISSING tooth if is missing ?? The implant is inserted IN THE PLACE of the missing tooth!
- in fig.4 – “remove the dead tooth and clean the root canal” ???? Dead tooth is not a term used in dentistry, and the root canal is a narrow canal inside the dental root where the dental pulp is placed, not the remaining space after the tooth extraction.
Response 14: We apologize for the inconvenience of your review as our language is not very precise. We have amended the sentence "the implant is inserted into the missing tooth" in Section 4.1: “The procedure begins with anesthesia, and then the mucosa is incised on the gingiva of the missing tooth area, the alveolar bone is exposed, the implant socket is prepared, and the implant is placed.” In addition, “Remove the dead tooth and clean the root canal” was replaced by “Remove necrotic tooth and clean the residual root” in Figure 6.
Point 15: REFERENCES
The cited references are not mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years), out of 131 titles, 64 are older than 5 years. References 18 – 22 are missing the year.
Response 15: We thank the reviewer for the professional advice, and we are very sorry that we did not notice the gap in the year of the references, so we have rechecked all of them and replaced some of the older ones, however, some of them were important references that we could not remove, and we hope that we can get your understanding.
Point 16: A big amount of the cited references are not relevant for the main topic (3D printed dental implants). For example 8, 41, 68, 109, 111, 113-130
Response 16: We thank the reviewer for the expert advice. We have revised the references and hope that our revised version will meet the publication requirements.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
In summary, we are so grateful for your careful and precise comments for our manuscript in person and you have definitely helped improve our manuscript We hope our revised version will be available for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for reviewing your article entitled ' A systematic review of 3D printing processes for new dental implant and their clinical applications`. This review is very interesting and can provide the precious informations not only for clinical doctors but also for technicians. I strongly think that the review has the potential to be accepted for the Journal.
Best regards,
Author Response
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsInteresting reviewing subject. However many points should be revised before final submission of the article.
1) The title should not have the word systematic since this is a narrative or a comprehensive review. Systematic reviews require extended statistical analyses.
2) Its Osseointegration not osteointergation p.2 of 24 2nd paragraph
3) In 2.2 paragraph laser modification technique in titanium implants is missing. An implant has been created with collar surface treated by laser micromachining to generate nano-channels( from: doi: 10.3390/ma14123370.) The benefits from laser modification of implants are not new and are described in an earlier study (Botos S, Yousef H, Zweig B, Flinton R, Weiner S. The effects of laser microtexturing of the dental implant collar on crestal bone levels and peri-implant health. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(3):492-498). I suggest this technique to be added.
3) Page 10 of 24 where ref 106 is stated : Zirconia glass ceramic composites consist of zirconia and a glass ceramic material ( Lithium silicate or lithium disilicate ) . It should be clear.
4) 3.4.4 should be revised the reader gets too little information about the material
5) Table 5 must have better structure in PDF version is confusing
6) Figure 4: It is not good to write "dead tooth and clean the root canal" please rephrase to explain what is the procedure to safely remove a tooth to initiate a bone substrate to position an implant
7) Conclusion has a stucture of an abstract. It should have only 3-4 sntences which are the findings/take home messages of this review.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate English editing is required.
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. The following are our replies to the comments, and the corresponding changes have been highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.
Point 1: The title should not have the word systematic since this is a narrative or a comprehensive review. Systematic reviews require extended statistical analyses.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the suggestions. We have revised the title to facilitate better generalization of the full text.
Point 2: Its Osseointegration not osteointergation p.2 of 24 2nd paragraph
Response 2: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the professional advice, and we are sorry that the incorrect use of technical terms. We have made a corresponding correction.
Point 3: In 2.2 paragraph laser modification technique in titanium implants is missing. An implant has been created with collar surface treated by laser micromachining to generate nano-channels (from: doi: 10.3390/ma14123370.) The benefits from laser modification of implants are not new and are described in an earlier study (Botos S, Yousef H, Zweig B, Flinton R, Weiner S. The effects of laser microtexturing of the dental implant collar on crestal bone levels and peri-implant health. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(3):492-498). I suggest this technique to be added.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have summarized the research on laser modification technique and added the laser microtexturing technique, and the corresponding references [37] and [61] was cited.
Point 4: Page 10 of 24 where ref 106 is stated: Zirconia glass ceramic composites consist of zirconia and a glass ceramic material (Lithium silicate or lithium disilicate). It should be clear.
Response 4: We greatly appreciate your valuable comments. We have added the specific composition of glass ceramic: lithium silicate or lithium disilicate in Section 3.4.2 Zirconia glass-ceramic composite material.
Point 5: 3.4.4 should be revised the reader gets too little information about the material.
Response 5: Many thanks to the reviewer for the valuable and constructive suggestions. In response to Section 3.4.4 you pointed out, we have conducted a detailed supplementary discussion.
Point 6: Table 5 must have better structure in PDF version is confusing
Response 6: We are very grateful to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions and constructive feedback. We have adjusted the format of Table 5.
Point 7: Figure 4: It is not good to write "dead tooth and clean the root canal" please rephrase to explain what is the procedure to safely remove a tooth to initiate a bone substrate to position an implant
Response 7: We thank the reviewer for the professional advice. We have replaced the first description in Figure 6 (Previous Figure 4) with “Remove necrotic teeth and clean the residual root”. Thank you for your reminder and we sincerely hope that the revised version will be published here.
Point 8: Conclusion has a structure of an abstract. It should have only 3-4 sentences which are the findings/take home messages of this review.
Response 8: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the professional suggestions. We have meticulously revised the conclusion section, refined the content of the article, and enhanced the precision of the language.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
In summary, we are so grateful for your careful and precise comments for our manuscript in person and you have definitely helped improve our manuscript. We hope our revised version will be available for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn their manuscript entitled ”A systematic review of 3D printing processes for new dental implant and their clinical applications”, the authors review methods for additive manufacturing with focus on dental implants for different levels of bone integration. This manuscripts indeed presents a valuable review of different aspects of dental implants, however, the focus on 3D printing (as suggested in the title) and on coatings (as suggested by the selection of the journal “Coatings”) does not become very clear.
A chapter deals with posttreatment of the 3D printed material surfaces and may refer to the theme of the selected journal “coatings”. Other than this chapter 2.2 there is little information about coatings.
I thus recommend a major revision of the description of the collected references to emphasize the keywords 3D printing and the applications and characterization of coatings (of 3D printed dental implants). Alternatively, the authors may change the title towards more general aspects of dental implants rather than the focus on 3D printing. Furthermore, the authors may consider a different journal than Coatings.
The schematics in Figure 1 are too small for a clear reading of the descriptions.
It seems that the columns in Table 1 are shifted since they do not match.
Insert line breaks in chapter 2.2.2 to better separate the different chemical modification methods.
Insert line break before chapter header 3.4.2 Zirconia glass-ceramic composite material.
In Table 5, the features for titanium are contradictory. “Light weight” is an advantage but “high weight” is a disadvantage. Both “high temperature resistance” and “low temperature resistance” are advantages.
In the conclusion, the authors mention 3D bioprinting but do not report on the application of biomolecules for 3D printing in the main text. The reference to bioprinting in the conclusion is thus unexpected.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAlthough the English grammar and vocabulary are acceptable, an occasional revision of the wording in some sentences and the corrections of some typos are necessary.
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. The following are our replies to the comments, and the corresponding changes have been highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.
Point 1: In their manuscript entitled ”A systematic review of 3D printing processes for new dental implant and their clinical applications”, the authors review methods for additive manufacturing with focus on dental implants for different levels of bone integration. This manuscripts indeed presents a valuable review of different aspects of dental implants, however, the focus on 3D printing (as suggested in the title) and on coatings (as suggested by the selection of the journal “Coatings”) does not become very clear.
A chapter deals with posttreatment of the 3D printed material surfaces and may refer to the theme of the selected journal “coatings”. Other than this chapter 2.2 there is little information about coatings.
Response 1: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for the meticulous review work. Your valuable suggestions have been invaluable to us, and we deeply appreciate the time and effort you have invested in the review process. In response to your feedback, we would like to make the following instructions:
The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on dental implants and to discuss their latest advances. Coatings are one of the parts we would like to summarize. There are many reviews on coatings, and we have tried to broaden our view in this paper to cover a variety of aspects such as the clinical application of dental implants. We believe that dental implants, as materials that are closely related to clinical treatment, should not be limited to laboratory studies, but require a deeper understanding of their application in clinical practice and their mechanism of action. Therefore, this review provides a comprehensive overview of dental implants while also focusing on clinical applications, aiming to provide a more comprehensive reference and guidance for subsequent research efforts. And we have revised the title and the corresponding part to make it more suitable for the journal “coatings”.
Point 2: I thus recommend a major revision of the description of the collected references to emphasize the keywords 3D printing and the applications and characterization of coatings (of 3D printed dental implants). Alternatively, the authors may change the title towards more general aspects of dental implants rather than the focus on 3D printing. Furthermore, the authors may consider a different journal than Coatings.
Response 2: Thank you for the valuable suggestions given by the reviewer, we have revised the full text by replacing more appropriate references, and we have added more coating related contents to better summarize the full text. Thank you very much for your suggestions, we hope that the revised version will be able to meet the publication requirements of Coatings.
Point 3: The schematics in Figure 1 are too small for a clear reading of the descriptions.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have split Figure 1 into three figures: Fig.1, Fig.2, and Fig.3, and inserted them below Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3, respectively. And we have adjusted the size of the figures properly, so that we can read the figures completely and clearly.
Point 4: It seems that the columns in Table 1 are shifted since they do not match.
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for the correction. We are sorry for the formatting problems that occurred when we made the table, in response, we have adjusted the format of the table again to make it easier to read and understand.
Point 5: Insert line breaks in chapter 2.2.2 to better separate the different chemical modification methods.
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. According to reviewers’ comments, we have polished the Chapter 2.2.2 to better separate the different chemical modification methods.
Point 6: Insert line break before chapter header 3.4.2 Zirconia glass-ceramic composite material.
Response 6: Thank you for the valuable suggestions. We are very sorry for this careless mistake. Thanks for your correction, we have added the Section 3.4.2 Zirconia glass-ceramic composite material.
Point 7: In Table 5, the features for titanium are contradictory. “Light weight” is an advantage but “high weight” is a disadvantage. Both “high temperature resistance” and “low temperature resistance” are advantages.
Response 7: Thank you for your reminding. It is our carelessness that led to the failure to express this part clearly. The advantage of titanium as a new implant material is not only that it is resistant to low temperature, but also that it has high temperature resistance. Its high temperature resistance allows it to be used at higher temperatures for a long time, and its low temperature resistance allows it to maintain good ductility and toughness, avoid the cold brittleness of the metal, and ensure the stability and reliability of the implant in extreme low temperature environment. We have made adjustments in the corresponding part of Table 5 in the manuscript.
Point 8: In the conclusion, the authors mention 3D bioprinting but do not report on the application of biomolecules for 3D printing in the main text. The reference to bioprinting in the conclusion is thus unexpected.
Response 8: We sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. In response to the suggestion, we have meticulously revised the conclusion section of our manuscript to more accurately summarize the main points of the entire text.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
In summary, we are so grateful for your careful and precise comments for our manuscript in person and you have definitely helped improve our manuscript. We hope our revised version will be available for publication.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I appreciate the extend changes made to the manuscript, thank you for taking into account my observations and recommendations. It is much improved but there are still some little corrections to make:
Into the Introduction
- “By connecting to the artificial tooth root, retention and support can be obtained from the artificial tooth root…”- this sentence it is not changed
- “Depending on the molding method, the most used 3D printing technology processes are stereolithography apparatus (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), and fused deposition molding (FDM), etc., and the principles and methods of the various processes are not the same”.
(Please remove the word apparatus …)
- in fig.6(4) – “remove the necrotic tooth and clean the residual root” ??? I’m sorry but it still sounds very wrong, and it is wrong!. So, it is enough if you write under the first image “tooth extraction” and under the second “preparation for the implant insertion. When someone it is not familiar with a specific domain, is better to say less….
If you want my sincere opinion, this figure should be removed completely, because is irrelevant to the topic of the manuscript – the reader is interested about the 3D Printed implants, not about the implant placement clinical stages.
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article again. The following are our replies to the comments, and the corresponding changes have been highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.
Comments 1: “By connecting to the artificial tooth root, retention and support can be obtained from the artificial tooth root…”- this sentence it is not changed.
Response 1: We apologize for not revising this paragraph in a timely manner. After our reflective discussion, this paragraph was somewhat redundant, so we have removed it and replaced it with: Dental implants provide an effective solution for restoring chewing function, offering superior strength and stability compared to other traditional restoration materials. Thus providing a more comprehensive overview of the benefits of dental implants. Thank you very much for your reminder, it was extremely helpful.
Comments 2: “Depending on the molding method, the most used 3D printing technology processes are stereolithography apparatus (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), and fused deposition molding (FDM), etc., and the principles and methods of the various processes are not the same”. (Please remove the word apparatus …)
Response 2: We thank the reviewers for their patience and apologize for overlooking this in the first revision, and we hereby remove the word “apparatus” from the introduction based on your reminder.
Comments 3: in fig.6(4) – “remove the necrotic tooth and clean the residual root” ??? I’m sorry but it still sounds very wrong, and it is wrong!. So, it is enough if you write under the first image “tooth extraction” and under the second “preparation for the implant insertion. When someone it is not familiar with a specific domain, is better to say less…. If you want my sincere opinion, this figure should be removed completely, because is irrelevant to the topic of the manuscript – the reader is interested about the 3D Printed implants, not about the implant placement clinical stages.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the renewed suggestions, which helped us immensely with the article, and we have therefore removed Figure 6. Hopefully revised version will be able to publish this time.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
In summary, we are so grateful for your careful and precise comments for our manuscript in person and you have definitely helped improve our manuscript. We hope our revised version will be available for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have replied to the comments in detail and revised the manuscript accordingly. I thank the authors to accept my comments and recommend the editor to accept the revised version of this manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much.
