Reproduction of Fine Details and Compatibility of Vinyl Polysiloxane Impression Materials
, Yasir Alyahya 2, Bilal Arjumand 2, Muhammad Qasim Javed 2,*, Ahmed Ali 3 and Mangala Patel 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewed manuscript is very confusing (on multiple aspects), the authors need to address some aspects, prior to a thorough evaluation.
Although the intended meaning of the article can be gleaned with effort, it is poorly written and several parts require attention, as to its grammar, structure and English. I mention some errors below:
- There are multiple instances of run-on sentences and random comma placement, often confusing the primary points of the sentence. The first sentence of the abstract serves as an example of this, mentioning the word “and” on six occasions!
- Punctuation in geeral seems to be an issue, e.g. line 25 “…alcohol) The…” should read “…alcohol). The…”
- Abbreviations should be explained only on first mention. This is not the case on multiple occasions e.g. in line 17, VPS is abbreviated but only explained on its next appearance (incidentally in the next line). This is however explained again only once sentence later (line 22)!
- Lines 30-31 mention “Aq M”, “Extr M” and “Elt M”, without any reference as to what these refer too.
- Page 1 (line 23) “…0.33% novel cross-linking agent…” do the authors mean 0.3wt%?
- Page 1 (line 24) why is “surfac-tant” hyphenated?
7. There are many more of these issues throughout the text and I’d ask the authors to carefully proofread their manuscript again or consult a colleague versed in scientific English editing.
Also, keywords are used to assist search engines to find the article, as such, is seems redundant to use keywords apparent in the title.
Some comments as to the methods employed:
8. In line 21, authors refer to Exp-I as their control while line 24 reads “Exp-II was control for Exp-III, IV and V…” this is very confusing and does not help in the interpretation of their manuscript. The same is repeated in line 138 and line 147.
9. Tables 2 and 3 should be combined as to allow a direct comparison of the tested formulation. At the present, the formulations are very confusing.
10. Lines 159-162 are redundant. If the composition would have been exactly the same, there would be nothing novel about it.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions on the report “Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane impression materials". We believed that all these had positively contributed towards improving the quality of the report itself and hope that these will help in getting the report to be published in the " Coatings" journal.
I am resubmitting our revised manuscript after addressing point-by-point, the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. The changes included improvement in the terms used, sentences, structure in a paragraph and presentation of the report and but not the context and meaning. Some parts have been re-worded and re-phrased for clarity. We also would like to thank you in advance for agreeing to review the resubmitted version of the manuscript.
Thank you.
Dr. Farooq Ahmad Chaudhary
Reviewer 1:
The reviewed manuscript is very confusing (on multiple aspects), the authors need to address some aspects, prior to a thorough evaluation.
Although the intended meaning of the article can be gleaned with effort, it is poorly written and several parts require attention, as to its grammar, structure and English. I mention some errors below:
1. Comment: - There are multiple instances of run-on sentences and random comma placement, often confusing the primary points of the sentence. The first sentence of the abstract serves as an example of this, mentioning the word “and” on six occasions!
Response: Corrections have been made as suggested by the respected reviewer.
2. Comment:- Punctuation in geeral seems to be an issue, e.g. line 25 “…alcohol) The…” should read “…alcohol). The…”
Response: Corrections of punctuation in general have been done as suggested by the respected reviewer. As abstract has been rewritten and line 25 has been deleted.
3. Comment:- Abbreviations should be explained only on first mention. This is not the case on multiple occasions e.g. in line 17, VPS is abbreviated but only explained on its next appearance (incidentally in the next line). This is however explained again only once sentence later (line 22)!
Response: Abbreviations have been corrected in the whole document and given only on first mention (Please see line 21 to 25).
4. Comment:- Lines 30-31 mention “Aq M”, “Extr M” and “Elt M”, without any reference as to what these refer too.
Response:
Aq M refers to Aquasil Ultra Monophase
Extr M refers to Extrude Medium-Bodied
Elt M refers Elite HD Monophase
(Please lines 24 and 25)
5. Comment:- Page 1 (line 23) “…0.33% novel cross-linking agent…” do the authors mean 0.3wt%?
Response: Yes, it means wt%. This has been changed in the whole documents according to the
Reviewer’s suggestion. Line 23 has been deleted to cut down the abstract which was suggested by the respected reviewer 2.
6. Comment:- Page 1 (line 24) why is “surfac-tant” hyphenated?
Response: “surfac-tant” has been removed to reduce the words in abstract” (line 29).
7. Comment:- There are many more of these issues throughout the text and I’d ask the authors to carefully proofread their manuscript again or consult a colleague versed in scientific English editing.
Also, keywords are used to assist search engines to find the article, as such, is seems redundant to use keywords apparent in the title.
Response: An English scientific writing expert was consulted to edit this document. Key words have been modified (lines 49 and 50).
8. Comment:- Some comments as to the methods employed:
In line 21, authors refer to Exp-I as their control while line 24 reads “Exp-II was control for Exp-III, IV and V…” this is very confusing and does not help in the interpretation of their manuscript. The same is repeated in line 138 and line 147.
Response: In the current study Exp-II is the control for Exp-III,IV and V. Exp-I was control for Exp-II, in which tear strength of the vinyl polysiloxane was improved by adding a novel cross linking agent (Tetra-functional (dimethylsilyl) orthosilicate). This part of the study has already been published by the authors. (Reference: Shahab Ud Din, Sandra Parker, Michael Braden, Mangala Patel. The effects of cross-linking agent and surfactant on the tear strength of novel vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. 2018. Dent Mater. (W category). 2018. 34(12): e334-e343 (Impact Factor 5.304).
9. Comment:- Tables 2 and 3 should be combined as to allow a direct comparison of the tested formulation. At the present, the formulations are very confusing.
Response: Tables 2 and 3 have been combined as suggested by the respected reviewer (Lines 172 and 181).
10. Comment:- Lines 159-162 are redundant. If the composition would have been exactly the same, there would be nothing novel about it.
Response: The components used in this study were not exactly the same as Lee et al’s and Oh et al’s formulations, such as the fillers (Aerosil R 812 S), novel cross-linking agent (Tet-ra-functional dimethylsilylorthosilicate) and surfactants (Ethoxylated ce-tyl-oleyl alcohol); however, some of the basic components (prepolymer and conventional cross-linking agent) were similar (lines 184 to 188).
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors show some solid results. However, the authors need to provide the following revision in order to get published.
（1）XPS ,EDS and NMR are required to confirm that the material you used is vinyl polysiloxane.
(2) The abstract is somewhat too long. No one has the interest to read so a long abstract. And in line of 17, " VPS" should be replaced by vinyl polysiloxane .
(3)The scale bar in Figs.2-6 is too blurred.
(4) The title should be revised. It is too long and showing two words of " materials".
(5) Where is the thickness of the film or your coating materials ? I can not find that information in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions on the report “Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane impression materials". We believed that all these had positively contributed towards improving the quality of the report itself and hope that these will help in getting the report to be published in the " Coatings" journal.
I am resubmitting our revised manuscript after addressing point-by-point, the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. The changes included improvement in the terms used, sentences, structure in a paragraph and presentation of the report and but not the context and meaning. Some parts have been re-worded and re-phrased for clarity. We also would like to thank you in advance for agreeing to review the resubmitted version of the manuscript.
Thank you.
Dr. Farooq Ahmad Chaudhary
Reviewer 2:
The authors show some solid results. However, the authors need to provide the following revision in order to get published.
Comment: 1）XPS, EDS and NMR are required to confirm that the material you used is vinyl polysiloxane.
Response 1: Novel EXP materials (EXP I-V) developed in this study are confirmed vinyl polysiloxanes impression materials. This was established in a previously published work of the authors, where Fourier Transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and contact angle measurement by Drop Shape Analysis (DSA) were used for this purpose. Please refer to lines 233-237.
Comment: (2) The abstract is somewhat too long. No one has the interest to read so a long abstract. And in line of 17, " VPS" should be replaced by vinyl polysiloxane .
Response 2: The abstract has been re-written and words have been reduced. VPS has been replaced with vinyl polysiloxane (lines 21 and 22).
Comment: (3)The scale bar in Figs.2-6 is too blurred.
Response 3: According to ISO4823, the requirement for a medium-bodied material is that it must reproduce the continuous line of 20 µm for fine detail production. For compatibility with gypsum products, the material must reproduce a continuous line of 50 µm. In Fig 2-6 whichever materials are not fulfilling these requirements their scale bars are blurred.
Comment: (4) The title should be revised. It is too long and showing two words of " materials".
Response 4: Title has been revised as suggested by the respected reviewer (Lines 1 to 4).
Comment: (5) Where is the thickness of the film or your coating materials ? I can not find that information in the manuscript.
Response 5: The thickness of the coating material was 3.5 mm. Please see lines 243 and 272.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors address the manuscript title "Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane impression materials."
There are the following major comments;
1. In the last section of the introduction, it is recommended to explain clearly the novelty and retionale of research.
2. The validation and characterization of experimtal formulations has not well included in the mnauscript. It is recommnded to add validation and characterization of formulations.
3. Discussion and conclusion parts are needed to be improved.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions on the report “Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane impression materials". We believed that all these had positively contributed towards improving the quality of the report itself and hope that these will help in getting the report to be published in the " Coatings" journal.
I am resubmitting our revised manuscript after addressing point-by-point, the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. The changes included improvement in the terms used, sentences, structure in a paragraph and presentation of the report and but not the context and meaning. Some parts have been re-worded and re-phrased for clarity. We also would like to thank you in advance for agreeing to review the resubmitted version of the manuscript.
Thank you.
Dr. Farooq Ahmad Chaudhary
Reviewer 3:
The authors address the manuscript title "Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane impression materials."
There are the following major comments;
Comment 1. In the last section of the introduction, it is recommended to explain clearly the novelty and retionale of research.
Response 1: Novelty, clarity and rationale of research has been improved (lines 114 to 134).
Comment 2. The validation and characterization of experimtal formulations has not well included in the mnauscript. It is recommnded to add validation and characterization of formulations.
Response 2: The validation and characterization of experimental formulations has already been done in the published part of this study. Please see the references given below:
- Shahab Ud Din, Sandra Parker, Michael Braden, Mangala Patel. Improved water absorption behaviour of experimental hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression materials incorporating a crosslinking agent and a novel surfactant. Dent Mater (W category). 2021. 37(6):1054-1065 (Impact Factor 5.304).
- Shahab Ud Din, Sandra Parker, Michael Braden, Mangala Patel. The effects of cross-linking agent and surfactant on the tear strength of novel vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. 2018. Dent Mater. (W category). 2018. 34(12): e334-e343 (Impact Factor 5.304).
- Shahab Ud Din, Muhammad Hassan, Sadia Khalid, Muhammad Sohail Zafar, Bilal Ahmed, and Mangala Patel. Effect of surfactant’s molecular weight on the wettability of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials after immersion disinfection, Mater Express, 2018;8(1):85-92 (Impact Factor 2.062).
- Shahab Ud Din, Sandra Parker, Michael Braden, Pete Tomlins, Mangala Patel. Experimental hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression materials incorporating a novelsurfactant compared with commercial VPS. Dent Mater. 2017. 33(8): e301–e309 (Impact Factor 5.304).
- Shahab Ud Din, Muhammad Sajid, Asfia Saeed, Farooq Ahmad Chaudhary, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Juneda Sarfraz, Bilal Ahmed, Mangala Patel. Dimensional changes of commercial and novel polyvinyl siloxane impression materials following sodium hypochlorite disinfection. Peer J 2022 (Impact Factor 2.984)
- Shahab Ud Din, Farooq Ahmad Chaudhary, Bilal Ahmed, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Sandra Parker, Mangala Patel , Muhammad Qasim Javed. Comparison of the hardness of novel experimental vinyl poly siloxane (VPS) impression materials with commercially available ones. BioMed Research International 2022 (Impact factor 3.41)
Comment 3. Discussion and conclusion parts are needed to be improved.
Response 3: Discussion and conclusion part of the study have been improved (Lines 321 to 386).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed most of my comments.
There are some persisting linguistic issues and I still fail to see the novelty of the study. I believe the authors should stress this more evidently.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions on the report “Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane impression materials". I am resubmitting our revised manuscript after addressing the novelty and linguistic issues. We also would like to thank you in advance for agreeing to review the resubmitted version of the manuscript.
Comment:
The authors have addressed most of my comments.
There are some persisting linguistic issues and I still fail to see the novelty of the study. I believe the authors should stress this more evidently.
Response: The manuscript has been reevaluated and all the linguistic issues have been corrected as suggested by the respected reviewer. Novelty of the study has been clarified further. Please see lines 116 – 148, lines 343 – 347, lines 361 – 423 and lines 431 – 453.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript according to the comments. It can be accepted now.
Author Response
Comment: The authors have revised the manuscript according to the comments. It can be accepted now.
Response: Thank you and noted.
Reviewer 3 Report
This revised manuscript can proceed for further journal process.
Author Response
Comment: This revised manuscript can proceed for further journal process.
Response: Thank you and noted.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors are encouraged to present their own results in a scientific version not as a technical report. It is also necessary to explain the mechanism that generated the very good results obtained and their reproducibility. The authors should correlate this mechanism with explanations regarding the improved properties as a result of this mechanism.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank you again for the valuable comments and suggestions on the report “Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane impression materials ". We believed that all these had positively contributed towards improving the quality of the report itself and hope that these will help in getting the report to be published in this journal.
I am resubmitting our revised manuscript after addressing point-by-point, the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. We also would like to thank you in advance for agreeing to review the resubmitted version of the manuscript.
Thank you.
Reviewer 1:
Comment: The authors are encouraged to present their own results in a scientific version not as a technical report.
Response: The results presented in the current study are a part of our own results produced during a huge research project on the development of novel experimental vinyl polysiloxane impression materials from which 5 impact factor article have already been published in reputable journals (References have been given in the end this document). The results of the current study have been presented in the best suitable way in their original form.
Comment: It is also necessary to explain the mechanism that generated the very good results obtained and their reproducibility. The authors should correlate this mechanism with explanations regarding the improved properties as a result of this mechanism.
Response: The mechanism of the results generated has been thoroughly explained in section 2.3 and 2.5. Section 2.3 elaborates the development of novel VPS materials while section 2.5 and Fig 1 explains the mechanism used for generating results.
References:
- Comparison of the Hardness of Novel Experimental Vinyl Poly Siloxane (VPS) Impression Materials with Commercially Available Ones. Shahab Ud Din, Farooq Ahmad Chaudhary, Bilal Ahmed, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Sandra Parker, Mangala Patel and Muhammad Qasim Javed. BioMed Research International. Volume 2022, Article ID 1703869, 5 pages. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1155/2022/1703869
- Shahab Ud Din, Sandra Parker, Michael Braden, Mangala Patel. Improved water absorption behaviour of experimental hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression materials incorporating a crosslinking agent and a novel surfactant. Dent Mater. 2021. 37(6):1054-1065
- Shahab Ud Din, Sandra Parker, Michael Braden, Mangala Patel. The effects of cross-linking agent and surfactant on the tear strength of novel vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. 2018. Dent Mater. 2018. 34(12): e334-e343.
- Shahab Ud Din, Muhammad Hassan, Sadia Khalid, Muhammad Sohail Zafar, Bilal Ahmed, and Mangala Patel. Effect of surfactant’s molecular weight on the wettability of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials after immersion disinfection, Mater Express, 2018;8(1):85-92
- Shahab Ud Din, Sandra Parker, Michael Braden, Pete Tomlins, Mangala Patel. Experimental hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression materials incorporating a novelsurfactant compared with commercial VPS. Dent Mater. 2017. 33(8): e301–e309
Reviewer 2 Report
In this article, the authors reported "Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and 2 die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane im-3 pression materials".
These are the following major comments as follows
- In the last section of the introduction, it is recommended to be included the main rationale of the research.
- In the preparation section 2.3. The authors have not mentioned the schematic figure of preparation of Exp-1.
- In conclusion, it is recommended to remove the bullets marks from each point.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank you again for the valuable comments and suggestions on the report “Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane impression materials ". We believed that all these had positively contributed towards improving the quality of the report itself and hope that these will help in getting the report to be published in this journal.
I am resubmitting our revised manuscript after addressing point-by-point, the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. We also would like to thank you in advance for agreeing to review the resubmitted version of the manuscript.
Thank you.
Reviewer 2:
In this article, the authors reported "Reproduction of fine details and compatibility with cast and 2 die materials of novel and commercial vinyl polysiloxane 3-impression materials". These are the following major comments as follows.
Comment: In the last section of the introduction, it is recommended to be included the main rationale of the research.
Response: The introduction section has been approved and revised and some latest references have also been quoted. The rational of the study has also been improved and additional information related to the study for clarity has been incorporated as suggested by the respected reviewer (line number 87–104).
Comment: In the preparation section 2.3. The authors have not mentioned the schematic figure of preparation of Exp-1.
Response: The experimental-I was prepared using control novel base paste and control novel catalyst paste.
Exp-I = Control novel base paste + Control novel catalyst paste
The detailed representation of all the novel experimental materials including Exp-I is given in section 2.3.1 and subsections 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.3.
Comment: In conclusion, it is recommended to remove the bullets marks from each point.
Response: Bullet points from all the conclusions have been removed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors has no changed the stucture of the article. It is still like a good technical report.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript can proceed for further process in the journal.
