Comparison of the internal fit of metal crowns fabricated by traditional casting, computer numerical control milling, and three-dimensional printing

Wei-Ting Chou; Chuan-Chung Chuang; Yi-Bing Wang; Hsien-Chung Chiu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257158

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 15, 2021
21 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Sompop Bencharit, Editor PONE-D-21-12569 Comparison of the internal fit of metal crowns fabricated by traditional casting, computer numerical control milling, and three-dimensional printing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chou, 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. Please see comments from the editor. Please address all comments and revise your manuscript accordingly. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sompop Bencharit, DDS, MS, PhD, FACP 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. TC2 Complete. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): While the work is interesting and has merit for future publication, there are some clarifications and additional information needed. Please see below: 1) Please add a summary of technology used to mill and print metal crowns in the introduction, perhaps in the third paragraph. 2) Please add explicit hypothesis and what you have expected in the last part of the introduction. 3) The Discussion needs to explain the limitations of the study and how these limitations may be addressed in future experiments. This should be in the last part of the Discussion. Errors of the lost wax technique, scanning errors, printing errors, and measurement errors should also be discussed. 4) Please discuss clinical relevances and how the experiment may or may not applicable to clinic patients. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.0257158.r001
Revision 1
16 Aug 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewers 1) Please add a summary of technology used to mill and print metal crowns in the introduction, perhaps in the third paragraph. Response: In simple terms, the process can be described as follows: the dentist creates a digital dataset on the computer (computer-aided design, CAD) and then designs a 3D object; the data of the 3D object are then transferred to the milling machine or a 3D printer, which creates a physical object from these data. 2) Please add explicit hypothesis and what you have expected in the last part of the introduction. Response: The null hypothesis is that the internal fit of digitally fabricated crowns is better than those of traditionally fabricated crowns. 3) The Discussion needs to explain the limitations of the study and how these limitations may be addressed in future experiments. This should be in the last part of the Discussion. Errors of the lost wax technique, scanning errors, printing errors, and measurement errors should also be discussed. Response: The limitations of this study include the in vitro setting, which might not reflect real conditions in patients’ mouths and daily clinical practice. In addition, even though the CAM equipment of the CAD/CAM system, which included the milling machine and 3D printer, has extremely outstanding surface illumination and high precision, more specimens and various milling machines and printers were not used. Therefore, there is a need to secure a greater number of specimens and additional equipment in future studies, and the use of human teeth would be ideal for simulating a clinical procedure. 4) Please discuss clinical relevances and how the experiment may or may not applicable to clinic patients. Response: In the traditional casting method, the molten alloy used for crown restoration shrinks upon solidification, and cobalt-chromium alloys shrink by as much as 2%. If the mold is not made correspondingly larger than the original wax pattern, the resultant cast will be much smaller. Therefore, for casting crowns, it is necessary to compensate for the solidification-related shrinkage of the alloy used by expanding the mold size to at least equal the shrinkage size. One of the mechanisms to produce mold expansion is wax pattern expansion; therefore, proper control by technicians may also influence the crown fit result. Over the years, the CAD/CAM fabrication method has gained popularity over the conventional method in dentistry, and dentists are moving ahead with the trend by taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the CAD/CAM technology to equip their clinics or laboratories with the latest materials that will make work easier and more efficient. One of the benefits of dental CAD/CAM technology is that it is time-saving, enabling faster dental crown production. It reduces the time to produce crowns to 2-5 days instead of 2-3 weeks required with the conventional procedure. With the CAD/CAM technology in dentistry, the outcome of restorations can be predicted. Devoid of traditional impressions requiring several processes, intraoral-extraoral scanning gives patients a more convenient dental restoration experience in the clinic. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257158.r002
25 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Sompop Bencharit, Editor Comparison of the internal fit of metal crowns fabricated by traditional casting, computer numerical control milling, and three-dimensional printing PONE-D-21-12569R1 Dear Dr. Chiu, 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, Sompop Bencharit, DDS, MS, PhD, FACP Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for the revision and responses to the comments. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257158.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Sep 2021 Acceptance Letter - Sompop Bencharit, Editor PONE-D-21-12569R1 Comparison of the internal fit of metal crowns fabricated by traditional casting, computer numerical control milling, and three-dimensional printing Dear Dr. Chiu: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sompop Bencharit Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257158.r004

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 .