Custom-made artificial eyes using 3D printing for dogs: A preliminary study

So-Young Park; Jeong-Hee An; Hyun Kwon; Seo-Young Choi; Ka-Young Lim; Ho-Hyun Kwak; Kamal Hany Hussein; Heung-Myong Woo; Kyung-Mee Park

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242274

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 7, 2020
15 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Fabian Huettig, Editor PONE-D-20-17365 Custom-made artificial eyes using 3D printing for dogs: a preliminary study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Park, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The reviewers granted a quick and constructive feedback which includes my fullest support and I am looking forward to a revised version of your manuscript for further consideration. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 29 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Fabian Huettig, DMD, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1, Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please indicate how often animal care staff monitored the health and well-being of the animals and the criteria used to make such assessments, and provide any additional details regarding housing conditions, feeding and exercise regimens, environmental enrichment if applicable. Thank you for your attention to this request" 3. We ask that you please consider moving Figures 1 and 2 to Supporting Information due to their graphic nature. Thank you for your consideration [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The idea of using 3D printing for making artificial eyes for dogs is a good one; the authors have demonstrated that it works. People in several professions will be interested in this article. I suggest an amplification of Materials story in this paper. Why hydroxyapatite ? As discussed by W. Brostow and H.E. Hagg Lobland, Materials: Introduction and Applications, John Wiley & Sons 2017, hydroxyapatite is an important constituents of human and animal bodies; this deserves to be said. Also, similarly the authors can explain the reasons for using polycaprolactone vs. PMMA. Reviewer #2: Dear editor and authors, thank you for the opportunity offered to me to review this work on the digital workflow in veterinary rehabilitation. The authors are to be commended for their innovative work, as they sought to integrate the digital protocol into a daily practice of animals eye enucleation treatment. Nonetheless, as it is, the manuscript presents some major weaknesses that should preclude its publication: 1). I must state that the manuscript was not easy to read and the described technical approach was hard to follow. This fact is surely attributed to the weak structure of this article, as the Materials&Methods and Results sections are a kind of combined together. For instance, you describe the digital data acquisition and go like: The size of the orbital implant was made to be 75% of the ocular volume by measuring the longest diameter of the eyeball using B-mode ultrasonography, according to a previous report [26]. For size of ocular prosthesis, the X-axis and Z-axis were determined by the diameter For me this belong surely to the M&M Section So I suggest that you should clearly state what was done in the M&M section touching upon the following points: -clinical examination -Surgical approaches and post-op phase -digital data acquisition -CAD -CAM Then you switch to RESULTS and describe: -the prosthesis fit -dogs owns perception -time and money investments 2). As the for the structure in the Introduction section, I suggest you should change it as well. In the middle of the Introduction section you state the aim of this study, and the start to describe the benefit of 3D printing utilization and its application in human facial prosthetics. I suggest the aim should be stated clearly and goes to the end of the section. You go like: Herein, we aimed to create custom-made artificial eyes including ocular implants and 75 prosthesis for dogs using 3D printing in order to overcome these challenges I suggest the aim of this clinical trial was not only to create the 3D printed eye prosthese, but to also to evaluate their clinical performance on two dogs cases and, what was in fact done. So please, do rephrase the aim and once again check the introduction section. 3) Currently, custom-made prostheses (CMPs) made of PMMA are mainly used in humans because they are more comfortable and esthetically more acceptable than ready-made prosthesis. Pleaser support this statement with a citation. 4) Currently, 3D printed bio-models are widely used in the medical field because they can provide tactile feedback and reproduce anatomical structures and movements. You need to provide a strong citation for this statement. 5) The 3D printing technology is used not only for planning surgical procedures, making intraoperative guidance devices, and training but also for producing facial prostheses of the nose and ear [23-25]. The citations 23 and 25 seem to be the wrong one, as they don’t relate neither to nose nor ear prostheses. Please check and consider citing for instance: PMID: 29145528 or PMID: 32611482 6) 367 Previously, a report scanned the wax model 367 using computed tomography (CT) I can not follow this sentence; please rephrase. 7) Please consider describing the other studies in impersonal way, avoiding such pronouns as he, they. Use the passive voice instead. 8) Why did you perform the both surgical evisceration and enucleation approaches? Was their any relevance for this? 9) Please do a spell check ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Witold Brostow Reviewer #2: Yes:** Alexey Unkovskiy [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242274.r001
Revision 1
8 Sep 2020 Author Response Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1, Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf >> We checked and followed PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. Please indicate how often animal care staff monitored the health and well-being of the animals and the criteria used to make such assessments, and provide any additional details regarding housing conditions, feeding and exercise regimens, environmental enrichment if applicable. Thank you for your attention to this request" >> Line 142-150: We included the required information of animal experiments in our manuscript. 3. We ask that you please consider moving Figures 1 and 2 to Supporting Information due to their graphic nature. Thank you for your consideration >> We moved Figures 1 and 2 to Supporting Information (S1 and S2 Fig). Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The idea of using 3D printing for making artificial eyes for dogs is a good one; the authors have demonstrated that it works. Q. People in several professions will be interested in this article. I suggest an amplification of the Materials story in this paper. Why hydroxyapatite ? As discussed by W. Brostow and H.E. Hagg Lobland, Materials: Introduction and Applications, John Wiley & Sons 2017, hydroxyapatite is an important constituents of human and animal bodies; this deserves to be said. Similarly, the authors can explain the reasons for using polycaprolactone vs. PMMA. >> Thank you for the reviewing our manuscript. >> In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have improved the material stories in our manuscript. >> Line 391-398, 401-405, 409-411 Reviewer #2: Dear Editor and authors, thank you for the opportunity offered to me to review this work on the digital workflow in veterinary rehabilitation. The authors are to be commended for their innovative work, as they sought to integrate the digital protocol into a daily practice of animal eye enucleation treatment. Nonetheless, as it is, the manuscript presents some major weaknesses that should preclude its publication: 1). I must state that the manuscript was not easy to read and the described technical approach was hard to follow. This fact is surely attributed to the weak structure of this article, as the Materials&Methods and Results sections are a kind of combination. For instance, you describe the digital data acquisition and go like: The size of the orbital implant was made to be 75% of the ocular volume by measuring the longest diameter of the eyeball using B-mode ultrasonography, according to a previous report [26]. For size of ocular prosthesis, the X-axis and Z-axis were determined by the diameter. For me, this belongs surely to the M&M Section So I suggest that you should clearly state what was done in the M&M section touching upon the following points: clinical examination -Surgical approaches and post-op phase -digital data acquisition -CAD -CAM Then you switch to RESULTS and describe: -the prosthesis fit -dogs owns perception -time and money investments. >> Thank you for the reviewing our manuscript. >> In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have revised our M&M and Results sections to describe these points. Please refer to these sections in our manuscript. >> Line 87, 105, 155, 205, 249, 299, 313, 330 2). As for the structure in the Introduction section, I suggest you should change it as well. In the middle of the Introduction section you state the aim of this study, and the start to describe the benefit of 3D printing utilization and its application in human facial prosthetics. I suggest that the aim should be stated clearly and goes to the end of the section. You go like: Herein, we aimed to create custom-made artificial eyes including ocular implants and 75 prostheses for dogs using 3D printing in order to overcome these challenges. I suggest the aim of this clinical trial was not only to create the 3D printed eye prosthese, but also to evaluate their clinical performance in two dog cases and, what was in fact done. Therefore, please rephrase the aim and once again check the introduction section. >> In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have revised our Introduction. The aim was rephrased and provided at the end of the section. >> Line 80-82. 3) Currently, custom-made prostheses (CMPs) made of PMMA are mainly used in humans because they are more comfortable and esthetically more acceptable than ready-made prostheses. Pleasers support this statement with a citation. >> Line 66-68: In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have added the citation. 4) Currently, 3D printed bio-models are widely used in the medical field because they can provide tactile feedback and reproduce anatomical structures and movements. You need to provide a strong citation for this statement. >> Line 76-78: In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have added the citations. 5) The 3D printing technology is used not only for planning surgical procedures, making intraoperative guidance devices, and training, but also for producing facial prostheses of the nose and ear [23-25]. Citations 23 and 25 seem to be the wrong ones, as they do not relate either to nose or ear prostheses. Please check and consider citing for instance: PMID: 29145528 or PMID: 32611482 >> Line 78-80: In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected these specific citations. 6) 367 Previously, a report scanned the wax model 367 using computed tomography (CT) I cannot follow this sentence; please rephrase. >> In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have rephrased the sentence. >> Line 365-366 : In a previous report, the wax model was produced by computed tomography (CT) scanning, and then the prosthesis was fabricated by 3D printing 7) Please consider describing the other studies in an impersonal way, avoiding such pronouns as he, they. Use the passive voice instead. >> In response to the reviewer’s comment, we have rephrased our sentences. >> Line 371-373: To overcome these limitations, a prosthesis was created by scanning the anophthalmic socket using CT, without creating an impression mold in the conventional way [1]. >> Line 378-379: A digital light processing (DLP) printer with liquid materials was used with high precision and output. 8) Why did you perform both surgical evisceration and enucleation approaches? Was any relevance for this? >> We have added an explanation for this in the manuscript. >> Line 425- 431 In this study, we performed two kinds of eye removal surgical methods including evisceration and enucleation because they have been usually done in both human and animal clinics. First, evisceration is performed on unresponsive endophthalmitis or painful eyes with no vision. Evisceration removes the contents of the eye except the sclera, conjunctiva, Tenon’s capsule, extraocular muscles and optic nerve. Second, enucleation removes the entire eyeball except conjunctiva, Tenon’s capsule and extraocular muscles, which is performed mainly in severe trauma, intraocular tumor. 9) Please do a spell check >> In response to the reviewer's comment, our manuscript has been reviewed by a native English speaker. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242274.r002
23 Sep 2020 Decision Letter - Fabian Huettig, Editor PONE-D-20-17365R1 Custom-made artificial eyes using 3D printing for dogs: a preliminary study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Park, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Could you please fix the minor issues which have been raised by the reviewers including a thorough textpolishing - and I am looking forward to crosscheck your corrections for final approval. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 07 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Fabian Huettig, DMD, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Could you please fix the minor issues which have been raised by the reviewers including a thorough textpolishing - and I am looking forward to crosscheck your corrections for final approval. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I have found an error in English in a sentence "KM Park make the experimental ideas", so please correct. In Ref. 42 the name of the second author should be Hagg Lobland HE, the year 2017. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, thank you for your respond. I would like to adress some minor revisions: Line 330: "No clinical complications such as inflammation, infection, or extrusion of the ocular implant observed during the 6 months after surgery" The verb "were" is missing Line 69 superior a esthetics. This does not sound good. Please rephrase. Line 354 "We found that using 3D printing, the production time was shortened, the price was lowered, and the labor required was reduced for the production of the artificial eyes" Rephrase the sentence as follows "We found that application of 3D printing allows to decrease the production time...." LIne 364 "In a previous report, wax model was produced by computed tomography (CT) scanning and then fabricated the prosthesis by 3D printing" Rephrase the sentence and omit the word "scanning", as it is not applicable with regards to CT. LIne 369 In addition, the soft tissue distortion of the anophthalmic socket could occur owing to the pressure of the molding material during the process of obtaining the impression mold, and an incorrect mold may be obtained. Please omit the last pasrt of the sentence. ("during the process of obtaining the impression mold, and an incorrect mold may be obtained"). Line 376 More recently, prostheses was produced using 3D printing more accurately. Either "Prosthesis was" or "Prostheses were" LIne 442 "the abovementioned" split these two words LIne 449. Conclusion must be rephrased. Please avoid using the pronouns like "We" and use the passive voice. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242274.r003
Revision 2
18 Oct 2020 Author Response Response to reviewers Reviewer #1: Q1. I have found an error in English in a sentence "KM Park make the experimental ideas", so please correct. A> Thank you for the reviewing our manuscript. We corrected the sentence. “KM Park designed the experiments.” (Line 464) Q2. In Ref. 42 the name of the second author should be Hagg Lobland HE, the year 2017. A> We corrected the author name. “42. Brostow W, Hagg Lobland HE. Materials: introduction and applications: John Wiley & Sons; 2017.” (Line 507) Reviewer #2: Q1. I would like to adress some minor revisions: Line 330: "No clinical complications such as inflammation, infection, or extrusion of the ocular implant observed during the 6 months after surgery" The verb "were" is missing A> Thank you for the reviewing our manuscript. We corrected the sentence. “No clinical complications such as inflammation, infection, or extrusion of the ocular implant were observed during the 6 months after surgery (Fig.6A, a).” (Line 330-331) Q2. Line 69 superior a esthetics. This does not sound good. Please rephrase. A> We rephrased the sentence. “Their use in small animals is relatively uncommon although they have shown good results, with few major complications and better appearance.” (Line 69-70) Q3. Line 354 "We found that using 3D printing, the production time was shortened, the price was lowered, and the labor required was reduced for the production of the artificial eyes" Rephrase the sentence as follows "We found that application of 3D printing allows to decrease the production time...." A> We rephrased the sentence. “We found that application of 3D printing allows to decrease the production time, price, and the labor for the production of the artificial eyes” (Line 355-356) Q4. LIne 364 "In a previous report, wax model was produced by computed tomography (CT) scanning and then fabricated the prosthesis by 3D printing" Rephrase the sentence and omit the word "scanning", as it is not applicable with regards to CT. A> We rephrased the sentence. “In a previous report, wax model was produced by computed tomography (CT) and then fabricated the prosthesis by 3D printing” (Line365-366) Q5. LIne 369 In addition, the soft tissue distortion of the anophthalmic socket could occur owing to the pressure of the molding material during the process of obtaining the impression mold, and an incorrect mold may be obtained. Please omit the last pasrt of the sentence. ("during the process of obtaining the impression mold, and an incorrect mold may be obtained"). A> We rephrased the sentence. “In addition, the soft tissue distortion of the anophthalmic socket could occur owing to the pressure of the molding material” (Line 369-370) Q6. Line 376 More recently, prostheses was produced using 3D printing more accurately. Either "Prosthesis was" or "Prostheses were" A> We corrected the sentence. “prostheses were” (Line 376) Q7. LIne 442 "the abovementioned" split these two words A> We corrected the sentence. “the above mentioned” (Line 442) Q8. line 449. Conclusion must be rephrased. Please avoid using the pronouns like "We" and use the passive voice. A> We rephrased the sentence. “In this study, CMP and ocular implants for companion animals were developed using 3D printing technology, overcoming the limitations of a conventional eye removal surgery in dogs.” (Line 449-450) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242274.r004
30 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Fabian Huettig, Editor Custom-made artificial eyes using 3D printing for dogs: a preliminary study PONE-D-20-17365R2 Dear Dr. Park, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Fabian Huettig, DMD, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for your corrections and improvements to the manuscript. I do apologize the delay in processing and hope that your research will be available ASAP to the scientific community within PLOS ONE. Reviewers' comments: - none - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242274.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .