Strategies to Enhance Biomedical Device Performance and Safety: A Comprehensive Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-46-47, please add reference

-122, please provide some detail about the fibrous capsure, such as type of material

-144 , please explain more about persistency

-170, please add reference for that authors refered to nanosecond for biofilm formation

-3.1. as a review paper, authors should have figures or tables to compile various functional groups that used to modify surface

-277-279, please add reference and explain more about surface modification

-3.2 authors should add table or figure to list significant finding of research using this technique

-394-395, please explain in more detail , it's not  clear

-464, please add diagram/figure to clearly show the diffrerence of these two methods

-3.2 as a review papars, authors should add a table to summarize the key finding of each paper that authors mentioned in this section

-

minor

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Strategies to enhance biomedical device performance and safety: a comprehensive review" is a review article dealing with the surface of biomaterials and its relation to cell adhesion, bacterial contamination and inflammation processes. The authors have consequently discussed the possible complications in case of biomaterials application and strategies for their overcoming. The manuscript is overall well structured and written with logical consequence. Nevertheless, the are some issues that are listed below:

1. There is too little illustrative material for a comprehensive review. Currently, there are only 3 figures only in the beginning of the manuscript. In my opinion, the text could be enriched with original figures from the cited references.

2. Furthermore, a comparison table with the results from different articles dealing with surface functionalization (method, substrate, final result) and one for the coating strategies would help the reader comprehend the available results.

3. The figures in the current version of the manuscript start from 3. Are there other figures or please correct the numeration.

4. The discussion brings out several times surface roughness as an important factor for adhesion and degradation. How exactly does it affect it? Should the surface be smoother or rougher?

5. Some SEM images from original articles could also be very illustrative in some discussion sections.

6. Some abbreviations are not introduced in the text (EDC, NHS).

7. The 3D printing of biomaterials should be discussed in the text as a separate section because the authors claim it has a very important place in recent biomaterials preparation. 

8. The conclusion and future trends should not include citations. It should provide the authors' conclusion of the findings and what could be expected in the future based on their expertise and current findings.

There are some unclear sentences throughout the manuscript mainly due to grammar issues or unfinished senteces. Here are some examples:

1. e.g. p. 4 line 134 "the host may not able to"

2. p. 9 line 327-328 " "an cell compatibility"

3. p. 11 line 376 "a composite coating consisted on calcium silicate"

4. p. 11 line 397 " osteintegrative attributed of metallic"

5. p. 13 line 494 " This controlled release mechanism."

6. p. 14 line "530" "onto the previously surface" and others.

In my opinion, a critical proofreading of the authors is advisable. There are some very long sentences which make the text difficult to follow and would benefit from paraphrasing (e.g. p. 3 lines 100-104).

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

accept

minor

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of the manuscript has answered all my comments and questions. The authors performed a thorough major revision and they have improved the scientific quality of the article. In its current state I think it is suitable for publishing in the journal Coatings.