Current Progress in the Development of Resin Materials with Nanofillers for 3D Printing of Denture Base
, Julfikar Haider 1,3,*, Abdulaziz Alhotan 4, Nikolaos Silikas 1 and Hugh Devlin 1,5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript was well decribed and organized. The topic will be useful for readers in this journal. Some minor concerns were raised to publish as a scientific paper. Revise the following points.
Minor points
The aim described in the Abstarct section and the Introduction section should be unified.
Table 2 and Table 3
As for the printer name and company, the details were lacking.
E.g. State and country.
Table 4
As for the printing orientations, an illustration will be useful for readers to understand an appropriate orientation.
Section 1.4
"aims" should be modified to "aimed".
Figure 6
PRISMA flow diagram should be followed?
Section 3.4.1
"3D 3D-printed" may be typo.
Section 3.4.3
Some species name should be written in Italic font?
"cytocompatible. of." may be typo.
Section 3.5
"one week, six months, twelve months, and eigteen months" should be modified to "1 week, 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months".
Author Response
1- The aim described in the Abstarct section and the Introduction section should be unified.
Response: Thank you for grabbing out attention to this. The aim in the introduction section was adjusted to be unified with the one in the abstract section.
2- Table 2 and Table 3
As for the printer name and company, the details were lacking.
E.g. State and country.
Response: Countries for each printers were added.
3- Table 4
As for the printing orientations, an illustration will be useful for readers to understand an appropriate orientation.
Response: Thank you for your input. An illustration was added to explain different orientations.
4- Section 1.4
"aims" should be modified to "aimed".
Response: The wording was adjusted.
5- Figure 6
PRISMA flow diagram should be followed?
Response: PRISMA chart was created instead of the current chart.
6- Section 3.4.1
"3D 3D-printed" may be typo.
Response: The typo was adjusted.
7- Section 3.4.3
Some species name should be written in Italic font?
Response: All the species names were written in Italic font.
8- "cytocompatible. of." may be typo.
Response: This typo was not found. Probably it was created with the different versions on the manuscript.
9- Section 3.5
"one week, six months, twelve months, and eigteen months" should be modified to "1 week, 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months".
Response: Changes were made following the reviewer’s comment at section 3.5.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI was very pleased to review the review article “Current progress in the Development of Resin Materials with Nanofillers for 3D Printing of Denture Base” This paper certainly helps to improve the CAD-CAM based dentistry in the field of prosthesis. However, I now recommend a minor revision of this paper to improve its quality as follows:
1. Make the same style in indenting a paragraph's first line in all sections—for example Page 1, line 40, and Page 2, line 53.
2. Some figure fonts are not similar and are smaller in size. Example, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6
3. Please re-check the importance of reference no. 111
Author Response
1- Make the same style in indenting a paragraph's first line in all sections—for example Page 1, line 40, and Page 2, line 53.
Response: Many thanks for noting this. The style was unified throughout the manuscript now.
2- Some figure fonts are not similar and are smaller in size. Example, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6
Response: The figures font and size are similar in the original figures. They are different on the manuscript based on the fit of the figures.
3- Please re-check the importance of reference no. 111
Response: This reference is important as it relates the readers for future challenges.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
