The Effect of Different Beverages on the Color Stability of Nanocomposite 3D-Printed Denture Base Resins
, Ali M. Alsalem 1, Ahmed M. Alessa 1, Soban Q. Khan 2, Passent Ellakany 3, Mohammed M. Gad 3,* and Shaimaa M. Fouda 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled "The effect of different beverages on the color stability of nano-composite 3D-printed denture base resins" evaluates the effect of different beverages on the color stability of denture base resins modified with zirconium dioxide nanoparticles. It has detailed study results, however, some experimental design or discussion need further clarifications. Therefore, it requires major revisions for the purpose of publication.
1. Have the authors evaluated the uniformity of 3D printing? The varied cross-linking of polymers will cause discrepancies in porosity and thus the color measurement, etc.
2. It is highly suggested to include the 3D printed models and how they are positioned at a spectromphotometer, for the audience to better vision how it is measured.
3. It is summarized the tannic acid in tea/cola contributed to the discoloration in the denture resin. Have the authors tested with tannic acid solution only to support the statement?
4. Are there any discussions about thermo cycling results?
5. Please add discussions about the denture difference between NextDent and ASIGA, which can potentially impact the testing results.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer: 1
The manuscript titled "The effect of different beverages on the color stability of nano-composite 3D-printed denture base resins" evaluates the effect of different beverages on the color stability of denture base resins modified with zirconium dioxide nanoparticles. It has detailed study results, however, some experimental design or discussion need further clarifications. Therefore, it requires major revisions for the purpose of publication.
Comment1: Have the authors evaluated the uniformity of 3D printing? The varied cross-linking of polymers will cause discrepancies in porosity and thus the color measurement, etc.
Response:1 Thank you for your comment. In the present study we didn’t compare between 3D printed resins as the main objective of study was the investigation and compare the effect of different solutions per nanocomposite 3D printed resin. However, we referred to the composition and nanoparticles distribution and their effect on color in the discussion section. P 12, L 333-343, 354-358
Comment2: It is highly suggested to include the 3D printed models and how they are positioned at a spectromphotometer, for the audience to better vision how it is measured.
Response2: Thank you for your comment. During measurement the port is locked and cover the specimen and it will not be representative.
Comment3: It is summarized the tannic acid in tea/cola contributed to the discoloration in the denture resin. Have the authors tested with tannic acid solution only to support the statement?
Response3: No we did not test the effect of tanic acid solution alone but we referred to previous studies that Tannic acid was considered one of the main compositions of the tested beverages. We mentioned as it has the main effect as reported in previous studies. [33-35]
Comment4: Are there any discussions about thermo cycling results?
Response4: Thank you for your valuable comment. We did not investigate the specimens before thermocycling, but we subjected all the specimens to thermocycling before doing the intended tests as aging method but it was not a variable. This was clarified in discussion. Please, see highlighted part in discussion section P 11, L 284-286
Comment5: Please add discussions about the denture difference between NextDent and ASIGA, which can potentially impact the testing results.
Response5: Thank you for your valuable comment. The aim of study is to evaluate the effect of different beverages on the color stability of nano-composite 3D-printed denture base resins, and we did not include the difference between different materials.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The summary is poor, it should be improved, perhaps a good introduction before the objective of said study would be important.
- The methodology is good, the development of the study is good.
- The time in which the study was carried out was good
- The results are interesting despite not being significant.
- It would be good if the author made a discussion section, there are previous studies with similar methodology, it would be interesting if the authors made a discussion themselves.
- Consider that the author must approve the bibliography
- The bibliographical references are good in quantity, however they are somewhat old, it would be good if they updated them, because surely there is more new information about it.
- I suggest minor changes
Author Response
Response to Reviewer: 2
Comment- The summary is poor, it should be improved, perhaps a good introduction before the objective of said study would be important.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have change it in manuscript (P 1 , L 15,16)
Comment 1: The methodology is good, the development of the study is good.
Response 1: Thank you for your feedback and positive comments
Comment 2: The time in which the study was carried out was good
Response 2: Thank you for your feedback and positive comments
Comment 3: The results are interesting despite not being significant.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment and positive feedback. We tried to describe the finding of this in simple way.
Comment 4: It would be good if the author made a discussion section, there are previous studies with similar methodology, it would be interesting if the authors made a discussion themselves.
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We understood the comment stand for methodology discussion. If this is true, we tried to discuss the methodology followed by results discussion and then compared with previous studies. Please, see highlighted paragraphs on methodology discussion P 11, L 284-300.
Comment 5: Consider that the author must approve the bibliography
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comment. The bibliography section was revised accordingly.
Comment 6: The bibliographical references are good in quantity, however they are somewhat old, it would be good if they updated them, because surely there is more new information about it.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. The references section was updated accordingly. Please, see highlighted (green) references # 26, also we remove some old references which highlighted with (Reed )
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been revised and most of the reviewer's questions have been addressed. Overall, it is good for the publication in Prosthesis.
