3D Printing as an Efficient Way to Prototype and Develop Dental Implants
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is interesting because concerns the study of the prototyping Dental Implants. However, some important corrections are necessary.
1. Please explain what specialized company develops the 3D design in Solidworks software.
2. Please add more information about the size geometry of the implant.
3. Please complete the information about the 3D printer, and technological parameters used to print the dental implant.
4. Page 5, line 147: “…torque equal to 250 Nm, according to the rotational speed of 2250 rpm.”
Why are these values included?
5. Conclusion is too short. Please add information about future studies.
Author Response
ANSWER – The authors thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript, for the time spend, and for the constructive and positive comments. Changes to the article are identified in blue.
The paper is interesting because concerns the study of the prototyping Dental Implants. However, some important corrections are necessary.
- Please explain what specialized company develops the 3D design in Solidworks software.
ANSWER –The explanation has been introduced in the text (1. Introduction) as suggested by the reviewer. A specialized company in Brazil, Modal Marcas e Patentes, for patent deposit, developed the first 3D design in Solidworks®.
- Please add more information about the size geometry of the implant.
ANSWER – The information was introduced in the manuscript, chapter 2. In this study, the screw has the size of 10 mm length and 4 mm diameter.
- Please complete the information about the 3D printer, and technological parameters used to print the dental implant.
ANSWER – Additional information has been introduced in the manuscript in chapter 2 - Materials and Methods.
- Page 5, line 147: “…torque equal to 250 Nm, according to the rotational speed of 2250 rpm.” Why are these values included?
ANSWER – The authors clarify this topic in chapter 3.2. An electric motor EM-12L with a maximum power of 59 W was selected, and angular speeds between 100 and 40000 rpm, and with a constant feed rate of 0.5 mm/sec vertically downwards. The relation between the torque, the maximum electrical power during drilling and the speed of rotation (n in rpm) is determined according to Eq. (1).
- Conclusion is too short. Please add information about future studies.
ANSWER – Additional sentences about future studies were included in the conclusion. Thank you.
The authors thank the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting study about the prototyping and development of dental implants. However, it is still not clear to me the following matters after I checked the manuscript. My suggestions are below:
1. It is recommended that the purpose of this paper be placed in the last or penultimate paragraph in the Introduction section.
2. Hope to enrich the research background and necessity of the experiment in this article.
3. It is suggested that a flow chart of the whole experimental process be added to the Materials and Methods section.
4. It is recommended to add references to the literature you have read on screws, grooves, prostheses, etc. in lines 72 to 78.
5. It is suggested to add the difficulties encountered in the conduct of the experiment and the solutions or limitations of the experiment in the discussion section.
6. The Figure 3 seems incomplete. Figure 4 is not clear and the background is messy. The image proportions presented in the article are too different. We suggest you try to unify the image proportions.
Author Response
ANSWER – The authors thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript, for the time spend, and for the constructive and positive comments. Changes to the article are identified in blue.
This is an interesting study about the prototyping and development of dental implants. However, it is still not clear to me the following matters after I checked the manuscript. My suggestions are below:
- It is recommended that the purpose of this paper be placed in the last or penultimate paragraph in the Introduction section.
ANSWER – The purpose of our manuscript was introduced in the last paragraph, in the Introduction section.
- Hope to enrich the research background and necessity of the experiment in this article.
ANSWER –New references and new explanations about the experiment were included in the text, namely in the chapter Discussion.
- It is suggested that a flow chart of the whole experimental process be added to the Materials and Methods section.
ANSWER – One flow chart was introduced in the Materials and Methods chapter.
- It is recommended to add references to the literature you have read on screws, grooves, prostheses, etc. in lines 72 to 78.
ANSWER –References related to these topics [9-13] and [14-17] have been included in the manuscript to provide all the bibliographic support to be applied in BKS according to all engineering and biological concepts.
- It is suggested to add the difficulties encountered in the conduct of the experiment and the solutions or limitations of the experiment in the discussion section.
ANSWER –Difficulties, limitations, and solutions have been included in the chapter Discussion.
- The Figure 3 seems incomplete. Figure 4 is not clear and the background is messy. The image proportions presented in the article are too different. We suggest you try to unify the image proportions.
ANSWER – New figures (4 and 5) were introduced unifying the proportions. Thank you.
The authors thank the reviewer.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
ANSWER – The authors thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript, for the time spend, and for the constructive and positive comments. Changes to the article are identified in blue.
The manuscript attempts to present a case about 3D Printing as an efficient way to prototype and develop dental implants. The paper is interesting in its experimental part but the introduction about the 3D Printing technology is very weak. The list of references should definitely be expanded, since they are few in quantity. Also, the language used is not proper in many parts with a number of mistakes and sentences that need rephrasing. I suggest the use of an English editing service or the text to be looked by a native English speaker.
My points are analytically listed below
Points for consideration:
- Point 1: The title has agrammatical mistake. It should be corrected to: “3D Printing as an efficient way to prototype and develop dental implants.”. “Prototyping” is wrong.
ANSWER – The title of the manuscript has been changed.
- Point 2: In line 45-48, you are implying that there are surgical applications of SLS since 1986. This is wrong. The SLS method itself was created then, but surgical applications were conducted much later. Please rewrite the sentence.
ANSWER –The sentence has been rewritten.
- Point 3: In lines 57 you could add a number of references about scaffolds made out of additive manufacturing.
- 10.1016/j.msec.2014.11.024
- 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.01.048
- 10.3390/applmech2020018
- 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.064
- 10.1007/s00170-015-7386-6
ANSWER –All proposed references have been included in the manuscript between the numbers [9-13].
- Point 4: In line 145-149 please include the number and type of elements used in the simulation.
ANSWER – Additional information related with this topic was introduced in the manuscript in the chapter 3.2. In our manuscript SOLID187 element was used, defined by 10 nodes. The mesh in the BKS screw consists of a total of 23215 tetrahedron elements and in the regular screw without biomechanism 47722 elements. The same element size was adopted equal to 0.3 mm.
- Point 5: In line 180, the phrase “It is crucial to innovate new biomaterials” is wrong in terms of proper use of English. Better write “It is crucial to invent” new biomaterials.
ANSWER – The sentence has been corrected, chapter 4. Discussion.
- Point 6: In line 208, the word “it’s” should be corrected to “is”.
ANSWER – This mistake has been corrected in the text.
The authors thank the reviewer.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
I have read your modified manuscript. However, some minor points should be modified:
1.It is suggested that the advantages and disadvantages of the design product compared with previous research should be added to the discussion section.
2.Both lines 112 and 118 are in Figure 2, so it is recommended that you modify them.
3.It is suggested that the format of references should be unified.
Author Response
ANSWER – The authors would like to thank again the reviewer for the time spend, and for the constructive and positive comments. Changes to the article are identified in green.
1.It is suggested that the advantages and disadvantages of the design product compared with previous research should be added to the discussion section.
ANSWER – The advantages and disadvantages have been included in the last paragraph of the chapter discussion.
2.Both lines 112 and 118 are in Figure 2, so it is recommended that you modify them.
ANSWER –The mistake has been corrected in the manuscript.
3.It is suggested that the format of references should be unified.
ANSWER –The format of references has been adjusted in the text.
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank the authors for their excellent and thorough revision. All my comments are being answered. I consent to the acceptance of the manuscript and wish the best for the manuscript:)
Just a tiny mistake in references 22 & 23. It is one reference, not two.
Author Response
I would like to thank the authors for their excellent and thorough revision. All my comments are being answered. I consent to the acceptance of the manuscript and wish the best for the manuscript:)
Just a tiny mistake in references 22 & 23. It is one reference, not two.
ANSWER – the authors thank the reviewer for his kind words. The mistake has been corrected in the manuscript.
