In Vitro Evaluation of Optimized PEEK Surfaces for Enhanced Osseointegration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper talks about their optimization of PEEK surface using sulfonation followed by hydrothermal treatment and the effect on osseointegration. Although the idea is understandable, I find the manuscript is written poorly. For example, figure 2 is totally reversed and not readable. Figure 3 is only mentioned in discussion while it is shown at very early in the manuscript. I recommend a big revision.

The experiment parts 2.3, 2.4 need to reorganize to make clearer. Although the authors have put three tables to show their experiments, it is still confusing. Table 2 needs to improve too. Related results part corresponding to this two sections 2.3, 2.4 are also confusing.   

The description about Figure 3 result is in the discussion. Neither the figure has scale bars to show the porosity, nor the statistical analysis in the result. Figure 4 on FTIR has to be reorganized. For example, the description on two peaks 3400 cm^-1, 1100 cm^-1 is on Figure 4a, which is hard to see and hard to understand. The expanded view is on Figure 4c,d. But the author did not point it out. Figure 4b shows sPEEK, which is supposed to be sfPEEK.

“Figure14” at page 13, line 460 is wrong. There is no figure 14 in the manuscript.

Overall, please read the manuscript thoroughly and find out more mistakes on wording, spelling.

The manuscript needs extensive editing. But I do not think it is because of poor English. I think the author just need to put more thoughts to make the logic better.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers inciteful questions and comments.  We have a point-by-point response to all of them below in blue text.  We also highlighted them in the submission.  We believe the reviewer’s comments strengthens our manuscript.

Reviewer 1:

The paper talks about their optimization of PEEK surface using sulfonation followed by hydrothermal treatment and the effect on osseointegration. Although the idea is understandable, I find the manuscript is written poorly. For example, figure 2 is totally reversed and not readable. Figure 3 is only mentioned in discussion while it is shown at very early in the manuscript. I recommend a big revision.

• Figure 2 was accidently reversed during the submission process. We have corrected the orientation.
• Figure 3 has been updated and discussed in the results section.

The experiment parts 2.3, 2.4 need to reorganize to make clearer. Although the authors have put three tables to show their experiments, it is still confusing. Table 2 needs to improve too. Related results part corresponding to this two sections 2.3, 2.4 are also confusing.  

The description about Figure 3 result is in the discussion. Neither the figure has scale bars to show the porosity, nor the statistical analysis in the result. Figure 4 on FTIR has to be reorganized. For example, the description on two peaks 3400 cm^-1, 1100 cm^-1 is on Figure 4a, which is hard to see and hard to understand. The expanded view is on Figure 4c,d. But the author did not point it out. Figure 4b shows sPEEK, which is supposed to be sfPEEK.

• We rewrote Section 2.3 with more details for increased clarity.
• Changed some labels in Table 1.
• We added additional sentences in Section 2.4 for added clarity. We removed Tables 2 and 3 and replaced it with a new Table 2.
• Results for the sulfonation in Section 3.1: We did remove some confusing wording and added additional details throughout for clarity. We added information/results about Design # 6. We added a new table (Table 3) with porosity results and changed the figure that was in this section to a new figure (Figure 3) that shows more porosity detail. We also added a scale bar to Figure 3.
• Results for the hydrothermal treatment in Section 3.2: We removed some confusing language and added additional sentences for clarity. We adjusted some labels/nomenclature for improved clarity in the text and figure.
• We added text for clarification of the FTIR results.

“Figure14” at page 13, line 460 is wrong. There is no figure 14 in the manuscript.

Overall, please read the manuscript thoroughly and find out more mistakes on wording, spelling.

• That was a typographical error and we reviewed the manuscript for any other English errors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs extensive editing. But I do not think it is because of poor English. I think the author just need to put more thoughts to make the logic better.

• We have completed a thorough review of the manuscript and added details/clarity to make it easier to follow and improve logic.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a nice work about the In Vitro Evaluation of Optimized Surfaces for Enhanced Osseointegration. This is an innovative work but to be publish some changes should be performed:

Major changes:

It would be nice to have a Table with the conditions and the results. For example, in Figure 5 the samples are S1-A, …It is difficult to correlate these with the treatments.

Figure 6: It was not clear what the control was.

In all In Vitro Evaluation tests, it was not clear which were positive and negative controls.

Minor changes:

Page 2, Line 76, 78: Where it is -SO3H should be -SO₃H

Page 2, Line 81: Where it is H3O should be H₃O

Throughout the entire document: Please confirm the subscript on the formulas.

Figure 2, Page 2: The image is not in the correct form.

Figure 5:Definition should be improved.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a nice work about the In Vitro Evaluation of Optimized Surfaces for Enhanced Osseointegration. This is an innovative work but to be publish some changes should be performed:

Major changes:

It would be nice to have a Table with the conditions and the results. For example, in Figure 5 the samples are S1-A, …It is difficult to correlate these with the treatments.

• We have added a more descriptive table for the hydrothermal treatments
• We added a caption to Figure 5 (same wording as used in the methods AFM section earlier).

Figure 6: It was not clear what the control was.

In all In Vitro Evaluation tests, it was not clear which were positive and negative controls.

• Addressed in the methods section 2.6.1 (sentence added)

Minor changes:

Page 2, Line 76, 78: Where it is -SO3H should be -SO₃H

• We have corrected all of the subscripts.

Page 2, Line 81: Where it is H3O should be H₃O

• We have reviewed and corrected all of the subscripts.  

Throughout the entire document: Please confirm the subscript on the formulas.

Figure 2, Page 2: The image is not in the correct form.

Figure 5: Definition should be improved.

• We have improved the image quality for both figures.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors mostly corrected the issues. I found two additional errors.

Line 18 "though" is probably wrong here. Table 2 Design#2 used sPEEK, which is sfPEEK. At the same table, the last sentence indicated "figure XX below". The author probably wants to put a real number there.

no other comments

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers inciteful questions and comments.  We have a point-by-point response to all of them below in blue text.  We also highlighted them in the submission.  We believe the reviewer’s comments strengthens our manuscript.

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors mostly corrected the issues. I found two additional errors.

Line 18 "though" is probably wrong here. Table 2 Design#2 used sPEEK, which is sfPEEK. At the same table, the last sentence indicated "figure XX below". The author probably wants to put a real number there.

Thank you for your thorough review.  We have corrected “though” to “through” in the abstract.  We have corrected Table 2 and also changed the specimen names to sfPEEK in Figure 4b to be consistent. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscrrpt is now publishable in my opinion. It is an intersting relevent work.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind words.