Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging

Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894" }, "headline": "Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro...", "datePublished": "2025-09-10T14:52:15", "dateModified": "2026-05-14T12:04:28", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Farah Y. Alshaikhnasser" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Shaymaa Y. Alboryh" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Zainab H. Al Dawood" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rawan F. Almedarham" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Fatimah A. Alhassan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Fatimah M. Alatiyyah" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Essam A. Nassar" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sultan Akhtar" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Soban Q. Khan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ahmed Tharwat Al Ammary" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mohammed M. Gad" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background: Although nanoparticles (NPs) incorporation has been suggested as a strategy to improve the mechanical properties of 3D-printed resins, there is a lack of evidence regarding its effect on the mechanical performance of 3D-printed denture teeth resin modified with different NPs). Therefore, this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of modified 3D-printed resins containing zirconium dioxide NPs (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide NPs (SNPs). Methods: Tooth-colored 3D-printed resin samples (ASIGA (AS)) and NextDent (ND)) were modified with silanized ZNPs and SNPs. For each printed resin, 100 specimens were fabricated and divided into five groups (n = 20): one group without NPs and four groups containing different NPs concentrations (0.5 wt.% ZNP, 1 wt.% ZNP, 0.5 wt.% SNP, and 1 wt.% SNP). In addition, 20 prefabricated teeth were included, resulting in a total of 220 specimens (100 AS, 100 ND, and 20 prefabricated teeth). Half of the specimens (110 samples) were subjected to thermal aging (TA; 5000 cycles). The fracture resistance and elastic modulus were evaluated, followed by Fourier-transform infrared and scanning electron microscopy analyses. An analysis of variance and Tukey’s post-hoc test were applied for data analysis. Results: Incorporating SNPs and ZNPs into the ND material significantly improved the fracture resistance compared to that of the control group, with 1 wt.%SNPs showing the highest resistance (1405.9±128.4 N) and 0.5 wt.%ZNPs the lowest (1047.5±100.6 N). However, the elastic modulus decreased notably with these additions, with the ND control group (3097.5±115.9 MPa) exhibiting the highest elastic modulus and ZNPs groups (1772.0±128.8 MPa) exhibiting the lowest. In between NPs-reinforced groups per NPs type, there were no significant differences between SNPs groups (p=0.064) as well as ZNPs groups (p=0.072). For the AS material, similar enhancements in fracture resistance occurred; however, reductions in the elastic modulus were more significant in the ND material (p<0.001*). For the AS material, SNPs and ZNPs addition improved fracture resistance relative to that of the control group. Post-TA, the elastic modulus significantly decreased in both the ND and AS materials (p < 0.05). Compared to ND material, the increase in fracture resistance was less pronounced in the AS material. Conclusion: The addition of ZNPs and SNPs increased the fracture resistances of both materials. TA significantly reduced the fracture resistance and elastic modulus in most NP-incorporated groups. The ASIGA resin demonstrated superior performance under the controlled laboratory conditions of this study, and the observed enhancements indicate promising material behaviour; however, any clinical relevance remains uncertain until validated through comprehensive long-term and clinically oriented investigations. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v4", "name": "Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated..." } } ] } Home Browse Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Y. Alshaikhnasser F, Y. Alboryh S, H. Al Dawood Z et al. Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166989.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] Farah Y. Alshaikhnasser 1 , Shaymaa Y. Alboryh 1 , Zainab H. Al Dawood 1 , [...] Rawan F. Almedarham 1 , Fatimah A. Alhassan 1 , Fatimah M. Alatiyyah 2,3 , Essam A. Nassar 4 , Sultan Akhtar 5 , Soban Q. Khan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8573-3080 6 , Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6678-7940 7 , Ahmed Tharwat Al Ammary 3 , Mohammed M. Gad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3193-2356 8 Farah Y. Alshaikhnasser 1 , Shaymaa Y. Alboryh 1 , [...] Zainab H. Al Dawood 1 , Rawan F. Almedarham 1 , Fatimah A. Alhassan 1 , Fatimah M. Alatiyyah 2,3 , Essam A. Nassar 4 , Sultan Akhtar 5 , Soban Q. Khan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8573-3080 6 , Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6678-7940 7 , Ahmed Tharwat Al Ammary 3 , Mohammed M. Gad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3193-2356 8 PUBLISHED 14 May 2026 Author details Author details 1 College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of Genetic Research, Institute for Research and Medical Consultations (IRMC), Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 3 Assistant Professor of Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University College for Boys' Faculty of Dental Medicine Assiut, Asyut, Assiut Governorate, Egypt 4 Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 5 Department of Biophysics Research, Institute for Research and Medical Consultations (IRMC), Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University Institute for Research and Medical Consultations, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 6 Department of Dental Education, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 7 Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 8 Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia Farah Y. Alshaikhnasser Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Shaymaa Y. Alboryh Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Zainab H. Al Dawood Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Rawan F. Almedarham Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Fatimah A. Alhassan Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Fatimah M. Alatiyyah Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Essam A. Nassar Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Sultan Akhtar Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Soban Q. Khan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Ahmed Tharwat Al Ammary Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Mohammed M. Gad Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Health Services gateway. This article is included in the Nanoscience & Nanotechnology gateway. Abstract Background: Although nanoparticles (NPs) incorporation has been suggested as a strategy to improve the mechanical properties of 3D-printed resins, there is a lack of evidence regarding its effect on the mechanical performance of 3D-printed denture teeth resin modified with different NPs). Therefore, this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of modified 3D-printed resins containing zirconium dioxide NPs (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide NPs (SNPs). Methods: Tooth-colored 3D-printed resin samples (ASIGA (AS)) and NextDent (ND)) were modified with silanized ZNPs and SNPs. For each printed resin, 100 specimens were fabricated and divided into five groups (n = 20): one group without NPs and four groups containing different NPs concentrations (0.5 wt.% ZNP, 1 wt.% ZNP, 0.5 wt.% SNP, and 1 wt.% SNP). In addition, 20 prefabricated teeth were included, resulting in a total of 220 specimens (100 AS, 100 ND, and 20 prefabricated teeth). Half of the specimens (110 samples) were subjected to thermal aging (TA; 5000 cycles). The fracture resistance and elastic modulus were evaluated, followed by Fourier-transform infrared and scanning electron microscopy analyses. An analysis of variance and Tukey’s post-hoc test were applied for data analysis. Results: Incorporating SNPs and ZNPs into the ND material significantly improved the fracture resistance compared to that of the control group, with 1 wt.%SNPs showing the highest resistance (1405.9±128.4 N) and 0.5 wt.%ZNPs the lowest (1047.5±100.6 N). However, the elastic modulus decreased notably with these additions, with the ND control group (3097.5±115.9 MPa) exhibiting the highest elastic modulus and ZNPs groups (1772.0±128.8 MPa) exhibiting the lowest. In between NPs-reinforced groups per NPs type, there were no significant differences between SNPs groups (p=0.064) as well as ZNPs groups (p=0.072). For the AS material, similar enhancements in fracture resistance occurred; however, reductions in the elastic modulus were more significant in the ND material (p<0.001*). For the AS material, SNPs and ZNPs addition improved fracture resistance relative to that of the control group. Post-TA, the elastic modulus significantly decreased in both the ND and AS materials (p < 0.05). Compared to ND material, the increase in fracture resistance was less pronounced in the AS material. Conclusion: The addition of ZNPs and SNPs increased the fracture resistances of both materials. TA significantly reduced the fracture resistance and elastic modulus in most NP-incorporated groups. The ASIGA resin demonstrated superior performance under the controlled laboratory conditions of this study, and the observed enhancements indicate promising material behaviour; however, any clinical relevance remains uncertain until validated through comprehensive long-term and clinically oriented investigations. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords 3D printing; thermal aging; nanoparticles; fracture resistance; resin teeth Corresponding Author(s) Mohammed M. Gad ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Mohammed M. Gad Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Y. Alshaikhnasser F et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. How to cite: Y. Alshaikhnasser F, Y. Alboryh S, H. Al Dawood Z et al. Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166989.4 ) First published: 10 Sep 2025, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166989.1 ) Latest published: 14 May 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166989.4 ) Revised Amendments from Version 3 Major and minor revisions were implemented in response to the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Additional paragraphs were incorporated into the introduction to clarify the study rationale and strengthen the justification of the research problem. The methodology section was expanded to include all necessary procedural details, along with adjustments to the measurement units. All figures were revised and updated according to the reviewers’ suggestions, incorporating the newly proposed schematic representations. Units and terminology were standardized throughout the text, figures, and tables to ensure consistency and clarity across the manuscript. The entire manuscript underwent thorough English editing, focusing on improving clarity, shortening the discussion, and removing redundant information. References were reorganized and updated to align with the newly added content and supporting citations. No changes were made to authorship. Major and minor revisions were implemented in response to the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Additional paragraphs were incorporated into the introduction to clarify the study rationale and strengthen the justification of the research problem. The methodology section was expanded to include all necessary procedural details, along with adjustments to the measurement units. All figures were revised and updated according to the reviewers’ suggestions, incorporating the newly proposed schematic representations. Units and terminology were standardized throughout the text, figures, and tables to ensure consistency and clarity across the manuscript. The entire manuscript underwent thorough English editing, focusing on improving clarity, shortening the discussion, and removing redundant information. References were reorganized and updated to align with the newly added content and supporting citations. No changes were made to authorship. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Emel Uzunoglu Ozyurek See the authors' detailed response to the review by Elif Yalçın and EYYÜP ALTINTAŞ See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yomna M. Ibrahim See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yasser Mohamed Aly See the authors' detailed response to the review by Büşra Tosun READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Artificial teeth for removable dentures are manufactured from various materials, including acrylic resin, ceramics, 3D-printed materials, and resin composites. 1 – 3 Conventionally, prefabricated denture teeth are made of acrylic resin, making them prone to fracture or chipping, particularly in situations in which a complete denture opposes natural teeth or an implant-supported overdenture. 4 – 6 With growing demand for artificial teeth with enhanced fracture resistance, various approaches have been proposed, including the use of different monomers, cross-linking agents, and organic and inorganic fillers in polymer matrices. 7 , 8 Despite these advancements, denture-teeth fractures continue to be a persistent issue, highlighting the need for the development of denture teeth fabricated using innovative methods capable of withstanding higher loads and forces. 8 , 9 Digital dentures can be produced by using subtractive or additive manufacturing techniques. 3 In the additive process, a photopolymerized liquid resin is used to build removable prostheses layer-by-layer. 3 , 4 , 10 This method offers several benefits, including the significantly lower cost of 3D printers compared with milling machines, which facilitates its broader adoption in clinical practice. 3 Unlike subtractive milling, 3D-printing generates less material waste. 3 , 11 , 12 Moreover, 3D-printed denture teeth are typically manufactured from methacrylate-based photopolymerized resin, a material specifically designed for processing through 3D-printing technology. 11 – 14 This method provides flexibility and precision, and improves functionality in the fabrication of removable dentures, making it a modern alternative to traditional techniques. Gad et al., 8 studied the fracture resistance of a specific type of 3D-printed teeth (NextDent), and showed that they exhibited greater fracture resistance than traditional prefabricated teeth. However, their strength decreased after exposure to thermal cycling. Similarly, Chun et al. , 10 examined another variety of 3D-printed resin teeth (Dentca) and reported that their fracture resistance was comparable to that of prefabricated teeth. These studies 8 , 10 identified the potential of 3D-printed resins and highlighted the need to improve their strength, especially after thermal aging (TA). The absence of nanoparticle (NP) reinforcement in previous research left a gap in the exploration of how NPs can enhance durability. 13 Therefore, exploring the incorporation of different NPs may be an effective approach for improving the mechanical properties of 3D-printed resin teeth. Owing to the capacity of 3D-printed resins for reinforcement, zirconium dioxide nanoparticles (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs) have attracted considerable interest. When added to a resin matrix, ZNPs, which are well known for their antibacterial properties, increase the mechanical strength and wear resistance of dental composites. 4 , 13 – 16 Similarly, SNPs enhance the hardness, fracture toughness, and elastic modulus of dental materials owing to their large surface area and compatibility with resin matrices. 15 By resolving the drawbacks of conventional materials, previous studies 4 , 13 have shown that the addition of these NPs to interim resins has yielded encouraging results, resulting in long-lasting and resilient interim restorations. The incorporation of ZNPs into 3D-printed dental resins has been investigated as an effective approach to enhance mechanical properties, particularly due to zirconia’s high strength, toughness, and resistance to crack propagation. 17 , 18 The reinforcing effect of ZNPs is strongly dependent on their concentration and dispersion within the resin matrix. Recent studies on 3D-printed and conventional denture base resins have shown that low to moderate concentrations of ZNPs (approximately 0.5–1 wt.%) significantly improve flexural strength, hardness, and fracture resistance by promoting effective stress transfer across the filler–matrix interface. 13 , 17 , 19 Increasing the concentration to 2–3 wt.% may further enhance certain mechanical properties; however, this effect is often material-dependent and may be accompanied by increased viscosity and potential processing challenges in 3D printing systems. 20 At higher concentrations (≥5 wt.%), studies have reported particle agglomeration, reduced interfacial bonding efficiency, and deterioration of mechanical performance due to stress concentration sites within the resin matrix. 18 Furthermore, excessive ZNP loading may negatively affect printability, surface quality, and dimensional accuracy of additively manufactured dental materials. Therefore, based on current literature, ZNP concentrations in the range of 0.5–2 wt.% are generally recommended for 3D-printed dental resins, as they provide a balance between mechanical reinforcement and material processability while minimizing adverse effects associated with nanoparticle aggregation. 18 The incorporation of SNPs into 3D-printed dental resins has been widely investigated as a strategy to enhance mechanical performance. Recent studies on 3D-printed denture base resins have demonstrated that low concentrations of SNPs (approximately 0.25–0.5 wt.%) are optimal for improving flexural strength and surface properties, with 0.5 wt.% showing the most significant enhancement in some resin systems. 21 Similarly, investigations on 3D-printing resins incorporating silica nanoparticles have reported the use of 1–2 wt.% concentrations, which resulted in improved degree of conversion and mechanical properties without adversely affecting print accuracy. 22 Although SNP concentrations can range widely (0.25–15 wt.%), lower concentrations are generally preferred to ensure homogeneous dispersion and effective stress transfer within the resin matrix. 15 Therefore, based on current literature, SNP incorporation in low to moderate concentrations (approximately 0.25–2 wt.% for 3D-printed resins) is considered optimal for enhancing mechanical performance while minimizing adverse effects related to particle aggregation and reduced material stability. 13 The improvement in mechanical properties of 3D-printed nanocomposite resins is mainly attributed to their role as reinforcing ZNPs and SNPs within the polymer matrix. 13 , 22 These nanoparticles enhance mechanical behaviour through effective stress transfer from the relatively compliant resin matrix to the stiff inorganic particles, thereby increasing resistance to deformation and fracture. In addition, their nanoscale size allows them to occupy intermolecular spaces within the polymer network, restricting polymer chain mobility and contributing to increased stiffness and hardness. 13 , 15 , 22 , 23 Crack deflection and crack pinning mechanisms are also considered important, particularly for ZNPs, which possess high fracture toughness and can hinder crack propagation, leading to improved fracture resistance. 24 , 25 Although the incorporation of NPs into 3D-printed resins has been explored as a strategy to enhance their mechanical properties, most previous studies have focused on general resin formulations or standardized specimen geometries that do not adequately replicate the clinical configuration of denture teeth. Furthermore, the available literature provides limited and inconsistent evidence regarding the influence of specific nanoparticles particularly ZNPs and SNPs at different concentrations on the mechanical performance of 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth fabrication. In addition, there is a lack of studies evaluating these modified materials under clinically relevant conditions, including anatomically shaped specimens and simulated aging processes such as thermal cycling. More importantly, direct comparisons between 3D-printed nanocomposite denture teeth and conventionally manufactured prefabricated teeth, which serve as the current clinical standard, remain scarce. This gap limits the ability to determine whether nanoparticle modification can produce materials with comparable or improved mechanical performance for clinical application. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of 3D-printed denture teeth modified with ZNPs and SNPs at different concentrations, and to compare their performance with prefabricated teeth before and after thermal aging. The study tested three null hypotheses: first, that incorporating zirconium dioxide (ZrO 2 ) and silicon dioxide (SiO 2 ) nanoparticles into 3D-printed denture-tooth resins would have no significant effect on their fracture resistance or elastic modulus; second, that thermal aging would not significantly influence these mechanical properties in any of the tested materials; and third, there is no significant interaction effect between nanoparticle type, nanoparticle concentration, and thermal aging on the fracture resistance and elastic modulus. Methodology The sample size for this in-vitro study was estimated using an online power and sample-size calculator, based on the mean and standard deviation values reported in previous studies that evaluated the fracture resistance of 3D-printed resin teeth. 8 , 26 These studies provided the closest available estimates of variability for the primary outcome measure. Using their reported mean difference and standard deviation as input parameters, the calculation was performed with a significance level of 5% (α = 0.05), a statistical power of 80% (1–β = 0.80), and a margin of error of 5%. The resulting output indicated that a minimum of ten specimens per subgroup would be sufficient to detect a statistically meaningful difference under these conditions. A total of 220 specimens were fabricated and subdivided as follows: 20 prefabricated teeth, 100 ASIGA, 100 NextDent. The prefabricated group (n = 20) consisted of mandibular molar teeth (Major Dent-V, MAJOR Prodotti Dentari S.P.A., Moncalieri (TO), Italy). For the printed groups, two types of photopolymerized resins were used to create the 3D-printed resin teeth (n = 100/resin): NextDent C&B MFH (NextDent, 3D Systems, Soesterberg, The Netherlands) and ASIGA (Asiga DentaTOOTH, Shade A1, ASIGA, Erfurt, Germany). Half of the prepared specimens (N = 110) were tested without thermocycling while another half (N = 110) were tested after thermocycling ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. Diagram illustrating the study design. In this study, 3D-printed groups were reinforced with two types of NPs: ZNPs (Shanghai Richem International Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) and SNPs (AEROSIL R812; Evonik-Degussa, Essen, Germany). Each NP type was incorporated into the resin fluid at two different concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%). The NPs were treated with silane coupling agent [3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyl methacrylate (TMSPM) (Shanghai Richem International Co., Ltd. China)] which contains bifunctional groups capable of forming a chemical bridge between inorganic fillers and organic resin matrices. The silanization process was performed by dissolving 0.3 g of TMSPM in 100 mL of acetone, followed by the addition of 30 g of nanoparticles and continuous stirring to promote the hydrolysis of alkoxy groups into silanol groups. 13 , 19 , 27 These silanol groups then react with hydroxyl groups present on the nanoparticle surface, forming stable siloxane (Si–O–Si or Zr–O–Si) bonds, while the methacrylate end of the silane co-polymerizes with the resin matrix during curing. 28 , 29 For nanocomposites preparations, 3D printed resins containers were shaken using shaker (NextDent LC- 3DMixer, B. V., Soesterberg, the Netherlands) for 1 h according to manufacture r recommendation for assurance of normal distribution fluid resin composition within each container. 30 The silanized NPs were carefully weighed using a digital balance (S-234; Denver Instruments, Gottingen, Germany) to ensure precise measurements. 15 , 16 Subsequently, the required amount of NPs was gradually added to the fluid resin while continuously stirring on a magnetic stirrer (Cimarec Digital Stirring Hotplates, SP131320-33Q; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) at 60°C for with 300 rpm 30 minutes. After the initial thermal mixing, the mixture was allowed to stir at room temperature for an additional 8 hours, enabling complete nanoparticle integration and stabilization of the nanocomposite prior to printing. 13 For each 3D printed resin type, five groups were prepared and classified according to nanoparticle (NP) type and concentration into one control group without reinforcement and four experimental groups containing different NP concentrations (0.5 wt.% ZNP, 1 wt.% ZNP, 0.5 wt.% SNP, and 1 wt.% SNP). A prefabricated mandibular molar tooth, standardized to dimensions of 10.2 × 11.1 × 7.3 mm, were scanned using desktop scanner (E3; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) to create a standard tessellation language (STL) file. The STL file was subsequently exported to the designated 3D printer. 8 , 13 As detailed in Figure 1 , all 3D printed specimens were fabricated using two different additive manufacturing systems according to the manufacturer-recommended printing protocols. The first group was printed using the ASIGA MAX (Asiga, Alexandria, NSW, Australia), which operates using digital light processing (DLP) technology with a 385-nm UV light source. The second group was fabricated using a NextDent 5100 (NextDent, 3D systems Vertex Dental B.V., Soesterberg, Netherland) with a 405-nm UV LED light source. Printing parameters were set to print specimens with 0-dgree printing orientations and 50 μm layer thickness, and the exposure time was set at approximately 5–6 s per layer according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. After printing, post-processing process included removal of printed object from the platform followed by cleaning, post curing and support structure removal. 31 – 33 Once printing was completed, the specimens were cleaned with 99.9% isopropyl alcohol to remove uncured resin. After cleaning, specimens underwent post-processing using the post-curing units of each printing system with the recommended post-curing process and conditions. 13 , 15 , 16 The post-polymerization protocol for ND was using curing unit (LC-D Print Box, 3D systems Vertex Dental B.V., Soesterberg, Netherland) for 15 min with wavelength measured 360–435 nm and ASIGA underwent for (Asiga Flash UV Curing Chamber) for 4000 flashes with wavelength 480–530 nm. Support structures were removed after post-curing, as complete light polymerization is necessary to achieve the final degree of conversion and mechanical stability of the resin, thereby reducing the risk of deformation or surface damage during support removal. 34 Supports were removed using a low-speed diamond disc under continuous water irrigation to reduce heat generation and prevent microcrack formation, as recommended in studies evaluating finishing procedures of resin-based materials. 31 , 33 Residual support areas were then refined using fine-grit diamond burs followed by sequential wet polishing with silicon carbide papers of increasing grit sizes (320, 600, and 1200) to achieve a uniform surface finish. 31 Final polishing was completed using rubber polishing instruments and acrylic polishing paste to enhance surface smoothness and optimize mechanical performance. 35 , 36 Printed teeth and prefabricated teeth were randomly divided into two groups according to thermal aging. Half of specimens (N = 110) were randomly selected and stored in water for 48 h at 37°C and then immediately tested. While the other half of the specimens (N = 110) were randomly selected and subjected to 5000 TA cycles. The TA process was performed using a Thermocycler (Thermocycler THE-1100, Mechatronik GmbH, Feldkirchen-Westerham, Germany). Five thousand cycles are roughly equivalent to 6 months in the oral cavity, based on the assumption that intraoral restorations can be subjected to abrupt temperature changes 20 times per day. 28 , 37 So, in this study, specimens were subjected to 5000 cycles at 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 s and transfer time of 4 seconds. 13 , 38 , 39 A stainless-steel ball indenter with a 7 mm radius was used to load the specimens at the occlusal surfaces using a universal testing apparatus (Instron model 5965, Massachusetts, United States) with a 5 kN load cell at a loading rate of 1 mm/min until failure occurred ( Figure 1 ). A 1.5 mm-thick rubber sheet was positioned between the occlusal surface and indenter to reduce contact damage and aid in distributing the load. 13 , 39 Fracture resistance was recorded as the maximum load at fracture and expressed in Newtons (N). The elastic modulus was calculated from the linear portion of the load–deflection curve obtained from the universal testing machine as described in previous study. 40 Essential data on the fracture behaviour of the modified 3D-printed denture teeth were obtained through fracture-site analysis using scanning electron microscopy (SEM; TESCAN VEGA3 LM model, TESCAN Orsay Holding, Kohoutovice, Czech Republic). To ensure optimal image quality, the fractured samples were cleaned and prepared by coating nonconductive polymer or resin materials with a thin layer of conductive gold (Quorum, Q150R ES, UK). This coating, applied at an accelerating voltage of 20 kV, prevented charging effects and enhanced image clarity. The specimens were then placed in the SEM chamber for analysis. Key fracture characteristics such as initiation sites, crack-propagation patterns, and interactions between the polymer matrix and reinforcing particles were identified. The NPs, with an average size of 40 nm and surface area of 9 m 2 /g, were analyzed using both SEM and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis is an essential tool for examining the bonding interactions between NPs and the polymer matrix because it offers comprehensive details on the chemical structure and functional groups present in the material. FTIR analysis assisted in identifying any changes in the molecular bonding caused by the addition of NPs. The specimens were placed inside an FTIR spectrometer for transmission spectroscopy (Hartmann & Braun, MB series), and two readings were obtained per specimen. FTIR spectra were obtained at a resolution of 4 cm −1 , spanning a wavenumber range of 4000 to 400 cm −1 . The resultant spectra showed distinctive peaks corresponding to certain functional groups; thus, the bond types and any matrix chemical changes caused by the presence of NPs could be identified. The means and standard deviations of the data were calculated for a descriptive analysis by using SPSS v.23. The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, with nonsignificant results indicating that the data followed a normal distribution. Consequently, parametric tests were applied for an inferential analysis. A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the effect of TA on fracture resistance. To explore the effects of the NP concentration on the fracture resistance and elastic modulus, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. If the ANOVA results were significant, pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s post hoc test. A three-way ANOVA was used to examine the interaction effects of the NPs, their concentration levels, and their properties. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Table 1 shows the three-way ANOVA of the three variables (NP type, material type, and impact of TA) and their interactions for fracture resistance. The combined interaction effect showed a significant interaction only between TA and the material type (P 0.05). Table 1. Three-way ANOVA results of combined factors for fracture resistance (N). Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F P Intercept 516513388.282 1 516513388.282 3087.313 <0.001 * concentration * TA effect 651393.526 5 130278.705 0.779 0.566 concentration * material 1224234.417 4 306058.604 1.829 0.125 TA effect * material 8297039.229 1 8297039.229 49.593 <0.001 * concentration * TA effect * material 1140271.465 4 285067.866 1.704 0.151 Error 33125781.671 198 167301.928 Total 582653174.952 220 * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. The fracture resistance results are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2 . For ND pre-TA, in comparison to pure resin, the addition of both SNPs and ZNPs significantly increased the fracture resistance (p 0.05) which showed the lowest fracture resistance value (1047.5 ± 100.6 N). In between NPs groups, SNPs showed significant increase compared to ZNPs while SNPs groups demonstrated an insignificant difference in fracture resistance compared to the prefabricated teeth (p > 0.05). For ND post-TA, in comparison to pure resin, the addition of both SNPs and ZNPs significantly increased the fracture resistance (p 0.05) which showed the lowest fracture resistance value (984.5 ± 81.9 N). In between NPs groups, 0.5 wt.% SNPs with the highest fracture resistance value (1387.1 ± 101.4 N) significantly showed an increase in the fracture resistance compared to all reinforced groups and demonstrated an insignificant difference in fracture resistance compared to prefabricated teeth (p > 0.05). In terms of the TA effect on ND, the fracture resistance was significantly decreased (P < 0.05) except the prefabricated (p = 0.087) and 0.5%SNP (P = 0.656). Table 2. Variations based on material and NP types and thermal aging (TA) effect on fracture resistance (N). Materials NPs/% Pre-TA Post-TA P Prefabricated - 1517.1 ±121.9 a 1221.6 ± 103.5 a 0.087 NextDent (ND) 0 (pure) 1097.8 ± 167.7 b 844.4 ± 136.8 c 0.032 * 0.5 wt.% SNPs 1357.5 ± 110.1 a 1387.1 ± 101.4 a 0.656 1 wt.% SNPs 1405.9 ± 128.4 a 1102.7 ± 114.8 b <0.001 * 0.5 wt.% ZNPs 1047.5 ± 100.6 b 984.5 ± 81.9 c 0.034 * 1 wt.% ZNPs 1209.1 ± 140.9 1050.1 ± 75.8 b 0.012 * P <0.001 * 0.003 * Prefabricated - 1517.1 ± 121.9 1221.6 ± 93.5 a 0.087 ASIGA (AS) 0 (pure) 2346.6 ± 162.9 a 1437.3 ± 101.7 b 0.001 * 0.5 wt.% SNPs 2192.2 ± 181.5 a 1352.9 ± 116.4 a 0.004 * 1 wt.% SNPs 2250.1 ± 168.6 a 1691.3 ± 110.8 b 0.005 * 0.5 wt.% ZNPs 2185.2 ± 117.8 a 1498.6 ± 156.3 b 0.003 * 1 wt.% ZNPs 2321.6 ± 171.3 a 1492.9 ± 118.2 b 0.009 * P 0.031 0.042 * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. The same lowercase alphabets in each column indicate statistical insignificance between the pairs. NP) nanoparticles, TA) thermal aging, NTA) no thermal aging. Figure 2. Fracture resistance of prefabricated and 3D-printed resins before and after thermal aging. For ASIGA pre-TA, the pure resin exhibited the highest fracture resistance value (2346.6 ± 162.9 N). In comparison to pure resin, the addition of both SNPs and SNPs showed no insignificant increase in fracture resistance (p > 0.05). In between NPs groups, no significance was found between all groups (p > 0.05); however, all reinforced groups and the pure group showed a significant increase in fracture resistance compared to the prefabricated group which showed the lowest fracture resistance value (1517.1 ± 121.9 N). For ASIGA post-TA, the results showed the same behavior before TA, no significant differences were found between groups (p > 0.05) except 0.5%SNPs which showed a decrease fracture resistance recorded the lowest value (1352.9 ± 116.4 N). In comparison to the prefabricated group, all reinforced groups showed a significant increase in fracture resistance (P < 0.001) except 0.5%SNPs (p = 0.921) and the prefabricated group showed the lowest fracture resistance value (1352.9 ± 116.4 N). In terms of the TA effect on ND, the fracture resistance was significantly decreased per respective group (P < 0.05) except for the prefabricated group (p = 0.087). The statistical T-test analysis for fracture resistance in Table 3 highlights the material-specific differences per respective NP type and concentration. Pre-AT, ASIGA significantly showed an increase in the fracture resistance (p < 0.05). Post-TA, significant differences in the fracture resistance were observed between the ND and AS materials across all NP-incorporated groups (p < 0.05), except for the pure resin (p = 0.387) and 1 wt.% SNPs (p = 0.657) groups. Table 3. T-Test compression of fracture resistance (N) between 3D-printed materials. Materials NPs/% NextDent (ND) ASIGA (AS) P Pre-TA 0 (pure) 1097.8 ± 167.7 2346.6 ± 162.9 0.000 * 0.5 wt.% SNPs 1357.5 ± 110.1 2192.2 ± 181.5 0.004 * 1 wt.% SNPs 1405.9 ± 128.4 2250.1 ± 168.6 0.001 * 0.5 wt.% ZNPs 1047.5 ± 100.6 2185.2 ± 117.8 <0.001 * 1 wt.% ZNPs 1209.1 ± 140.9 2321.6 ± 171.3 <0.001 * Post-TA 0 (pure) 1221.6 ± 103.5 1221.6 ± 93.5 0.387 0.5 wt.% SNPs 844.4 ± 136.8 1437.3 ± 101.7 0.003 * 1 wt.% SNPs 1387.1 ± 101.4 1352.9 ± 116.4 0.657 0.5 wt.% ZNPs 1102.7 ± 114.8 1691.3 ± 110.8 <0.001 * 1 wt.% ZNPs 984.5 ± 81.9 1498.6 ± 156.3 <0.001 * * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. NP) nanoparticles, TA) thermal aging, NTA) no thermal aging. Table 4 shows the three-way ANOVA of the three variables (NP type, material type, and impact of TA) and their interactions for the elastic modulus. The results showed a significant interaction between all variables (P < 0.05) and when the three variables were combined (P = 0.007). Table 4. Three-way ANOVA results of combined factor for elastic modulus (MPa). Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F P Intercept 619284785.339 1 619284785.339 4469.913 <0.001 * concentration * TA effect 10514215.811 5 2102843.162 15.178 <0.001 * concentration * material 2097194.635 4 524298.659 3.784 0.005 * TA effect * material 918520.695 1 918520.695 6.630 0.011 * concentration * TA effect * material 2031145.360 4 507786.340 3.665 0.007 * Error 27431940.310 198 138545.153 Total 1013871903.958 220 * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. The elastic modulus results are summarized in Table 5 and Figure 3 . The prefabricated teeth significantly showed the highest elastic modulus values pre-TA (5002.0 ± 172.8 MPa) and post-TA (4255.5 ± 100.5 MPa). For ND pre-TA, the addition of SNPs and ZNPs significantly decreased the elastic modulus when compared with the pure resin (p < 0.001) and the lowest elastic modulus value was recorded with 1%ZNPs (1772.0 ± 128.8 MPa). In between NPs-reinforced groups per NPs type, there were no significant differences between SNPs groups (p = 0.064) as well as ZNPs groups (p = 0.072). When comparing NPs type, ZNPs showed a significant decrease in elastic modulus and the highest elastic modulus value was found with 1%SNPs (2048.2 ± 132.8 MPa) and the lowest values with 1%ZNP (1772.0 ± 128.8 MPa). For ND post-TA, in comparison to the prefabricated group, the elastic modulus of pure and NP-modified groups were significantly decreased (P < 0.001). While no significant differences between the pure and NP-modified groups (p < 0.05) and the pure group showed the highest elastic modulus value (376.6 ± 35.6 MPa). In terms of the TA effect, the elastic modulus of prefabricated, pure, and NP-modified groups was significantly decreased per respective NP type and concentration (p < 0.05). Table 5. Variations based on material and NP types and thermal aging (TA) effect on elastic modulus (MPa). Materials NPs/% Pre-TA Post-TA P Prefabricated - 5002.0 ± 172.8 4255.5 ± 100.5 0.002 * NextDent (ND) 0 (pure) 3097.5 ± 115.9 376.6 ± 35.6 a <0.001 * 0.5 wt.% SNPs 1951.9 ±147.3 a,b 370.2 ± 36.4 a <0.001 * 1 wt.% SNPs 2048.2 ± 132.8 a 357.3 ± 31.9 a <0.001 * 0.5 wt.%ZNPs 1891.1 ±112.5 b,c 364.5 ± 35.1 a <0.001 * 1 wt.% ZNPs 1772.0 ± 128.8 c 359.8 ± 21.8 a <0.001 * P <0.001 * <0.001 * Prefabricated - 5002.0 ± 172.8 4255.5 ± 102.5 0.002 * ASIGA (AS) 0 (pure) 2725.2 ± 115.3 a 2364.1 ± 42.2 a <0.001 * 0.5 wt.% SNPs 1951.1 ± 161.9 b 376.3 ± 25.6 a 0.001 * 1 wt.% SNPs 2608.1 ± 94.1 a 345.8 ± 91.5 a <0.001 * 0.5 wt.% ZNPs 2639.0 ± 93.0 a 362.0 ± 29.3 a <0.001 * 1 wt.% ZNPs 2201.8 ± 108.1 b 390.0 ± 25.1 a <0.001 * P <0.001 * <0.001 * * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. The same lowercase alphabets in each column indicate statistical insignificance between the pairs. NP) nanoparticles, TA) thermal aging, NTA) no thermal aging. Figure 3. Elastic modulus of prefabricated and 3D-printed resins before and after thermal aging. For ASIGA pre-TA, the pure resin and NP-modified groups showed a significant decrease in elastic modulus when compared with the prefabricated group (p < 0.001). In comparison to the pure group, the addition of both NPs showed a significant decrease in elastic modulus with 0.5%SNP and 1%ZNPs and 0.5%SNPs showed the lowest elastic modulus value (1951.1 ± 161.9 MPa). While no significant differences between pure resin and other NP-modified groups (pure vs. 1%SNPs and pure vs. 0.5%ZNPs, p > 0.05). in between NP-modified groups, 1%SNPs and 0.5%ZNPs significantly showed higher elastic modulus compared with 0.5%SNPs and 1%ZNPs and the highest values were recorded with 0.5%ZNPs (2639.0 ± 93.0 MPa) followed by 1%SNPs (2608.1 ± 94.1 MPa). For ASIGA post-TA, the elastic modulus was significantly decreased in pure and NP-modified groups when compared with the prefabricated group (p 0.05) and 1%ZNPs showed the highest elastic modulus value (390.0 ± 25.1 MPa). In terms of the TA effect, the elastic modulus of prefabricated, pure, and NP-modified groups was significantly decreased per respective NP type and concentration (p < 0.05). The statistical T-test analysis for elastic modulus in Table 6 highlights the material-specific differences per respective NP type and concentration. Pre-AT, pure ASIGA significantly showed a decrease in the elastic modulus compared with pure NextDent (p = 0.003). While NP-modified ASIGA groups showed a significant increase in elastic modulus except at 0.5 wt.% SNPs (p = 0.998). Post-TA and Pre-AT, pure ASIGA significantly showed a decrease in the elastic modulus compared with pure NextDent (p = 0.032*). While no significant differences in the elastic modulus were observed between the ND and AS materials across all NP-incorporated groups (p > 0.05). Table 6. T-Test compression of elastic modulus (MPa) between materials. Materials NPs/% NextDent (ND) ASIGA (AS) P Pre-TA 0 (pure) 3097.5 ± 115.9 2725.2 ± 115.3 0.003 * 0.5 wt.% SNPs 1951.9 ± 147.3 1951.1 ± 161.9 0.998 1 wt.% SNPs 2048.2 ± 132.8 2608.1 ± 94.1 <0.001 * 0.5 wt.% ZNPs 1891.1 ± 112.5 2639.0 ± 93.0 <0.001 * 1 wt.% ZNPs 1772.0 ± 128.8 2201.8 ± 108.1 0.022 * Post-TA 0 (pure) 4255.5 ± 100.5 2364.1 ± 42.2 0.032 * 0.5 wt.% SNPs 376.6 ± 35.6 376.3 ± 25.6 0.531 1 wt.% SNPs 370.2 ± 36.4 345.8 ± 91.5 0.712 0.5 wt.% ZNPs 357.3 ± 31.9 362.0 ± 29.3 0.809 1 wt.% ZNPs 364.5 ± 35.1 390.0 ± 25.1 0.070 * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. NP) nanoparticles, TA) thermal aging, NTA) no thermal aging. Figure 4 shows the entire range of the infrared spectrum, 4000–500 cm −1 , demonstrating the bonding of AS and ND with different types of NPs at varied concentrations. The FTIR spectra of the AS and ND materials revealed characteristic bonds attributed to carbonyl groups. All the groups of specimens exhibit the C-H bond at approximately 2900 cm −1 and C=O double bond at approximately 1703 cm −1 . The most significant difference between the AS and ND groups was observed in the spectral region of 1144–1034 cm −1 in the FTIR spectrum. This range corresponded to the stretching vibrations of the C–O–C (ether) functional group. The differences in this region indicate that the chemical environment or bonding characteristics of the C–O–C group vary, suggesting structural or compositional differences between the materials. Figure 4. FTIR spectra of modified pure and nanoparticle-incorporated resins. (A) Modified pure and nanoparticle-incorporated ASIGA specimens. (B) Modified pure and nanoparticle-incorporated NextDent specimens. The important bands are labelled in each set of specimens. Figures 5 – 7 display the SEM images of both the occlusal and fracture surfaces. The fracture behavior of the occlusal surface showed more crack propagation in the NP-reinforced groups than in the pure-resin smooth fracture and absence of cracks. Prefabricated teeth ( Figure 5 ) include a smooth occlusal surface and smooth fracture line. An additional note regarding 3D-printed teeth is the stepwise effect, representing printing layers on curved surfaces, such as cusp tips and cusp slopes ( Figures 6 and 7 ). While comparing the two groups, pure ND and AS exhibited deep and multiple cracks. NP- incorporated AS are showing multiple and long propagated crack as compared to NP- incorporated ND. These SEM findings are useful while evaluating the mechanical strength of two types of specimens. Some cracks followed the line between the printed layers, which may be a reason for the weakened strength of printed teeth compared with prefabricated teeth that showed a smooth occlusal surface (absence of the staircase effect). In the cross-sectional surface analysis, most of the groups reinforced with NPs showed a rough surface with some lamellae as well as prefabricated teeth, whereas the pure teeth showed a smooth fracture side. Compared with AS groups the ND cross-sections showed higher surface roughness with several lamellar surfaces as marked with white arrows ( Figure 7 ). Figure 5. Representative SEM images of prefabricated teeth. a) Occlusal surface, b) fracture surface. Figure 6. Representative SEM images of 3D-printed teeth for both materials showing the occlusal surface. Figure 7. Representative SEM images of 3D-printed teeth for both materials showing the fracture surface. The cracks propagations are highlighted with red arrows while lamella structures are marked with white arrows. Discussion The aim of this study was to examine the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of 3D-printed denture-teeth pre- and post-TA with the addition of ZNPs and SNPs. The first and second null hypotheses were rejected because of the significant effect of NP addition and TA on the fracture resistance and elastic modulus when compared with the prefabricated teeth. For the third null hypothesis concerning fracture resistance, the hypothesis of no interaction between thermal aging and material type was rejected, indicating a statistically significant interaction effect. In contrast, the null hypotheses involving interactions with nanoparticle concentration were accepted, as these interactions were not statistically significant. Thus, although nanoparticle incorporation influenced the materials at the main‑effect level, its interaction with other variables did not meaningfully affect the outcomes under the conditions tested. These findings indicate that the observed changes in material performance were primarily associated with the combined influence of thermal aging and material type, rather than synergistic interactions involving nanoparticle concentration. The selection of ZNPs and SNPs type and concentrations was based on previous reports demonstrating their ability to enhance the mechanical and physicochemical properties of dental resins including recently developed 3D‑printed formulations when incorporated at appropriate concentrations compared with unmodified materials. 41 , 42 Alshamrani et al. 41 and Alhotan et al. 42 reported that adding SNPs or ZNPs significantly enhanced the mechanical and thermal stability of photopolymer resins. While the higher NPs concentrations could disrupt polymer cross-linking, reducing the elastic modulus as reported by Yan et al. 43 Our results align with these reports, highlighting the importance of maintaining optimal nanoparticle concentrations (0.5–1 wt%) to achieve a balance between strength and flexibility. In this study, the incorporation of SNPs at varying concentrations into 3D-printed denture teeth increased the fracture resistance at immediate testing prior to TA in 3D-printed ND materials. This enhancement occurred by reinforcing the polymer matrix, which increased stiffness, reduced crack propagation, and boosted toughness through mechanisms such as crack deflection and energy dissipation. 18 – 20 The findings of the present study are consistent with previous reports 13 , 39 , 44 that showing that incorporating low concentrations of SNPs into 3D-printed interim resins can enhance their mechanical properties without negatively affecting the printing process. In addition, previous study 13 has been investigated the flexural properties of 3D-printed resins containing 0.5 and 1 wt.% SNP concentrations. The results indicate that the addition of 1 wt.% SNP significantly improved the strength of 3D-printed resins. ZNPs have been recommended for incorporation into dental composites to improve their mechanical qualities, as ZNPs are well known for their remarkable hardness and capacity to reinforce resin composites. 13 , 16 , 39 This investigation demonstrates that ZNPs improve the fracture resistance of 3D-printed ND only at 1 wt.% before TA. The improvements in fracture resistance resulting from ZNP integration demonstrating the ability of ZNPs to enhance the mechanical properties of polymer-based materials. 13 , 16 The primary mechanism proposed is the ability of ZNPs to interact with polymer chains, distribute applied stress, and inhibit fracture formation. 16 Additional reason is attributed to the stiffening effect of zirconia, which reinforces the polymer matrix by promoting crack deflection and energy dissipation. 41 , 45 Before thermal aging, the ND resin showed a greater improvement in fracture resistance than the AS resin when the same concentration of SNPs was incorporated. Although both materials benefited from SNP addition, ND exhibited a particularly notable increase at 1 wt.% SNP. Compared with a previous study, where the fracture resistance of AS was reported as 1305.7 ± 197.4 N, the present study demonstrated substantially higher values, exceeding 2,000 N for AS both with and without nanoparticle reinforcement. Similarly, earlier work reported a fracture resistance of 867.8 ± 108.4 N for ND, 8 whereas the current findings showed an increased value of 1097.8 ± 167.7 N. These differences may be attributed to the inherently stronger mechanical properties of AS, potentially higher cross-linking density, and variations in matrix–nanoparticle compatibility, which may make AS less reliant on external reinforcement than ND. 12 – 14 This interpretation is further supported by FTIR results, where shifts in the C–O–C regions suggest differences in polymer–filler interactions between the two materials. No significant differences were found between the prefabricated teeth and the ZNP-reinforced AS resin. Although ZNPs were incorporated into the AS formulation, the resulting improvement in fracture resistance was less pronounced than that observed in ND. This is likely due to the inherently superior baseline mechanical properties of the AS resin, which already exhibits higher fracture resistance and therefore shows a smaller relative gain following nanoparticle reinforcement. Previous studies investigating the fracture strength of different dental materials have shown similar findings, in which resin materials with higher intrinsic fracture strengths demonstrate less improvement when reinforced with NPs. 41 , 42 , 44 – 46 It is important to investigate the strength of dental materials following artificial aging as many products experience decay in their strength after aging. The use of both thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups is essential to distinguish between the initial mechanical properties of materials and their behaviour after simulated oral aging. 37 Non-aged specimens represent baseline performance immediately after fabrication, whereas thermocycling simulates intraoral temperature fluctuations and associated degradation processes. 28 , 37 Previous studies have shown that thermal cycling can significantly reduce mechanical properties such as hardness and flexural strength due to hydrolytic degradation, water sorption, and internal stress development within polymer-based materials. 29 Moreover, thermal aging has been reported to alter the structural integrity and surface characteristics of dental materials, thereby influencing their long-term clinical performance. 47 Therefore, comparing pre- and post-thermocycling conditions provides a comprehensive evaluation of both the immediate performance and durability of materials, which is particularly important when assessing the reinforcing effect of nanoparticles in 3D-printed resins. In this study, the effect of thermal stress on the mechanical properties of the materials revealed significant differences between the pure and NP-modified groups in their fracture resistance. In pure groups, thermal stress generally led to a substantial reduction in the fracture resistance. This reduction in fracture resistance is attributed to the development of micro-cracks and other defects arising from repeated expansion and contraction under temperature changes. 43 These internal stresses lead to material weakening, making the material more prone to fracture. Additional factor that could be considered is the water sorption during thermal aging. 3D-printed denture teeth., water sorption plays a significant role in weakening the printed resin structure over time. When these materials absorb water, the polymer matrix undergoes plasticization, leading to reduced stiffness and softening of the intermolecular bonds. 48 This process compromises the integrity of the printed tooth, making it more susceptible to crack initiation and propagation under occlusal loading. 49 Owing to the addition of the NPs, the thermal stress caused thermal stability in the nanocomposite materials to some extent, thereby sustaining the properties of the materials and maintaining their elastic modulus. 41 – 43 Following TA, the 3D-printed resins with 1 and 0.5 wt.%SNP maintained superior mechanical properties and were comparable to the performance of traditional prefabricated resins and higher than pure control in ND 3D-printed resins. In AS 3D-printed resins, 0.5 wt.% of SNP revealed higher strength than the prefabricated teeth and the pure control. These findings indicate that the incorporation of an optimal amount of 0.5 wt.% concentrations can enhance the ability of 3D-printed teeth to endure thermal stresses in the oral environment, positioning them as a feasible alternative to conventional prefabricated resins. 42 The enhancement in the mechanical performance of nanocomposite 3D-printed teeth can be partly attributed to the incorporation of ZNPs and SNPs nanoparticles which contribute to reduced water sorption and improved structural stability. 42 The incorporation of nanoparticles into resin matrices can reduce water sorption because the fillers occupy free volume within the polymer network and limit the diffusion pathways available for water molecules. When nanoparticles particularly those treated with silane coupling agents are well-bonded to the resin matrix, they enhance cross-link density and reduce polymer porosity, thereby lowering the material’s affinity for water. 19 , 42 Another mechanism by which nanoparticles decrease water sorption is through the introduction of more hydrophobic surfaces within the resin such as SNPs, when properly silanized, create a less hydrophilic composite structure that resists water uptake. 19 Such findings agree with previous studies indicating that the addition of SNP increased the fracture resistances of 3D-printed resins even after TA. 39 , 44 After TA in the ZNPs groups, the incorporation of 1 and 0.5 wt.% of ZNPs in ND 3D-printed resin was associated with higher fracture resistance than pure control but not prefabricated teeth. While in AS 3D-printed resins, ZNPs incorporation did not offer additional strength following TA compared to pure control, but the fracture resistance was higher than prefabricated teeth. The results found in this study may indicate that the incorporated NPs were more effective in maintaining the fracture resistance of the 3D-printed resins when compared to the pure control and prefabricated teeth. For the elastic modulus, all the groups experienced significant reduction in their elastic modulus pre-TA compared to the prefabricated teeth, suggesting that the addition of NPs may alter the stiffness of the polymer network. The highest elastic modulus in the ND control group (3097.5 ± 115.9 MPa) indicates that the base resin formulation provides higher rigidity, which is reduced upon NP incorporation. 12 , 41 This decline aligns with the findings who reported that excessive ZNPs concentrations may disrupt polymer cross-linking, leading to reduced stiffness. Also, there is frequently a nonlinear relationship between the mechanical properties of composite materials and their filler content. 22 Such an explanation could be applied as well when the elastic modulus values of the SNPs groups are observed. However, our findings contraindicate other studies showing that the addition of 1 wt.% SNP significantly improved the elastic modulus of 3D-printed resins compared with the control groups without the NPs. 39 , 44 This may suggest that other parameters could affect how NPs may influence the elastic modulus of dental materials. This study revealed that TA significantly reduced the elastic modulus for pure control and experimental groups of 3D-printed resins, and prefabricated teeth. This significant reduction is mainly related to the 3D-printed resins rather than the incorporated NPs. The reduction in elastic modulus observed after thermal aging can be attributed to several degradation mechanisms affecting resin-based dental materials. Exposure to a moist environment and repeated thermal fluctuations increased the amount of water sorption and promotes water diffusion into the polymer matrix, leading to plasticization of the resin network and a consequent reduction in stiffness and structural stability over time. 43 , 50 , 51 Similar findings were reported by Yan et al., 43 and Alhotan et al., 42 who observed that prolonged exposure to alternating hot and cold temperatures compromises the molecular integrity of polymer-based materials. In addition, the incorporation of nanoparticles at higher concentrations may interfere with polymer chain mobility and cross-linking efficiency, resulting in a more brittle and less elastic network. 41 These findings suggest that both intrinsic polymer degradation and filler–matrix interactions contribute to the observed decline in stiffness after aging, highlighting the need for further optimization of nanoparticle content to balance strength and flexibility. Another factor that could affect the mechanical performances of 3D printed resin within the fabrication procedures is the post-polymerization conditions. 52 – 54 Post-polymerization conditions are critical determinants of the final physical and mechanical properties of photopolymerized dental resins. 53 Parameters such as light intensity, exposure duration, wavelength, and post-curing temperature significantly influence the degree of conversion (DC) and cross-link density of the polymer network. 53 – 55 Accordingly, optimized post-curing procedures improve polymerization efficiency and mechanical performance of 3D-printed resins, whereas inadequate post-polymerization may accelerate degradation and reduction in stiffness after aging. 53 , 55 , 56 The differences in post-curing behaviour between the ASIGA Flash unit and the NextDent LC-3D Print Box as the two curing machines do not deliver the same type or amount of energy while ASIGA uses pulsed flashes and NextDent uses continuous curing. This difference can lead to different degrees of conversion, which directly affects mechanical properties after aging. Therefore, differences in post-curing protocols between the evaluated materials may represent a potential confounding factor affecting the observed changes in elastic modulus following thermal aging. In this study, two fracture modes are identified: brittle and ductile. The fracture mode serves as a guide for the material strength and microstructural properties. 8 , 9 According to SEM findings, the fracture resistance of denture teeth with a ductile fracture pattern before breakage was greater than that of teeth without this pattern, such as in the AS group. The weakened structure of the teeth, which enables them to support their weight for an extended period, appears to be the cause of such outcomes. 8 Notably, the NextDent groups exhibited more pronounced structural degradation and surface defects following thermal cycling and staining, indicating lower resistance to aging compared to other tested resins. 57 As the material ages or is subjected to elevated temperatures, its degradation rate significantly increases. 8 , 9 This phenomenon was empirically confirmed by microscopic observations in form of lacking the typical embedded nanoparticles or matrix material. 13 Similar to the findings of the current study, Chung et al ., 9 showed that quasi-plastic materials exhibited a more gradual loss of strength than stiff materials. Furthermore, Gad et al., 8 illustrated that the scattered fractures in AS demonstrated that these materials have a stronger fracture resistance, which is further corroborated by their higher strengths. However, the ND materials showed a fracture mode that was characterized by an early failure dominated by brittle fractures and a lack of dispersed fractures. This implies that the strength threshold of the ND material is lower, resulting in early breaking without the progressive deformation observed in stronger quasi-plastic materials. The existence of brittle fracture modes in the ND material emphasizes the necessity of strengthening its mechanical characteristics to increase its resistance to fractures. From a clinical perspective, the present findings suggest that NPs incorporation may enhance the mechanical performance of 3D-printed denture teeth; however, the effect appears to be influenced by both the type of nanoparticle and the resin used. Specifically, SNPs demonstrated greater improvement in strength in ND resins compared to ZNPs, while both NPs showed comparable effects in ASIGA resins at similar concentrations, highlighting the importance of material type and NPs compatibility in optimizing outcomes. As this study considered one of the early investigations exploring nanocomposite 3D-printed denture teeth, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the inherent limitations of in vitro studies. Nevertheless, the observed increase in fracture resistance indicates a potential clinical benefit in reducing the risk of denture fracture, particularly in high-stress regions. Conversely, the reduction in elastic modulus following thermal aging suggests possible long-term limitations in structural stiffness and durability, emphasizing the need for further material optimization and long-term evaluation. Within these constraints, nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins especially those containing 0.5–1 wt.% SNPs or ZNPs may be considered promising candidates for denture tooth fabrication in cases subjected to elevated occlusal forces, although additional clinical and fatigue-based studies are recommended before definitive clinical adoption. The lower elastic modulus observed, may contribute to a more favourable stress distribution under masticatory forces, potentially reducing the risk of debonding or microfracture at the tooth/base interface. These findings should be interpreted within the limits of this in‑vitro investigation, and no clinical applications can be inferred at this stage. Additional investigations particularly those evaluating wear behaviour, abrasion resistance, antagonist interactions, and long‑term functional performance are required before considering any potential clinical use of reinforced 3D‑printed denture teeth. Despite the important findings of this study, some limitations exist such as the study focused on two types of NPs, narrow range of NP concentrations, and nanoparticle dispersion was achieved through thermal stirring and mechanical shaking, without the use of ultrasonication. Regarding the FTIR analysis, only a randomly selected subset of specimens was evaluated, which limited the ability to fully assess the degree of conversion across all samples. Consequently, the FTIR results should be viewed as supportive qualitative findings rather than a comprehensive measure of polymerization behaviour. Although thermal aging in present study, the absence of extended aging protocols and fatigue testing represents an important limitation. Without long-term aging, essential information on material performance over prolonged periods is lacking, which may lead to an overestimation of their longevity and reliability. Likewise, fatigue testing is crucial for identifying failure patterns that emerge only under repeated loading. Based on listed study limitations, future studies should investigate the effects of different nanoparticle types and concentrations in various tooth-resin systems, incorporate ultrasonication during NPs/resin mixing, and include the degree of conversion evaluation as an indicator of mechanical performance. Additionally, conducting all tests under conditions that more closely simulate the oral environment is recommended. At the printing-technology level, further research is needed to clarify the interactions between nanoparticle content, 3D-printing parameters, and the resulting fracture resistance of these materials in dental applications. Conclusions In conclusion, this laboratory study demonstrates that incorporating ZNPs and SNPs improved the fracture resistance of the tested denture base materials under controlled experimental conditions. Thermal aging significantly reduced the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of most nanoparticle-reinforced groups, except for specific concentrations in both materials. Among the tested formulations, AS showed the most favourable fracture resistance profile within the limits of this in-vitro setup. These findings reflect material behaviour under single-load fracture testing and short-term aging; therefore, further research including fatigue loading and long-term aging is required before drawing conclusions about clinical performance. Ethics and consent Ethical approval and consent were not required. Data availability Dataset available upon request from the authors. Acknowledgements Not applicable. References 1. Kamonwanon P, Yodmongkol S, Chantarachindawong R, et al. : Wear resistance of a modified polymethyl methacrylate artificial tooth compared to five commercially available artificial tooth materials. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2015 Aug; 114 (2): 286–292. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Alam M, Chugh A, Kumar A, et al. : Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of anterior provisional restorations fabricated using conventional and digital techniques - An in vitro study. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2022 Oct-Dec; 22 (4): 361–367. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. Jain S, Sayed ME, Shetty M, et al. : Physical and Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Provisional Crowns and Fixed Dental Prosthesis Resins Compared to CAD/CAM Milled and Conventional Provisional Resins: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Polymers (Basel).2022 Jun 30; 14(13): 2691. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 4. AlGhamdi MA, Alatiyyah FM, Almedarham RF, et al. : Impact of Nanoparticle Addition on the Surface and Color Properties of Three-Dimensional (3D) Printed Polymer-Based Provisional Restorations. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2024 Apr 11; 14 (8): 665. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 5. Bozini T, Petridis H, Garefis K, et al. : A meta-analysis of prosthodontic complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in edentulous patients after an observation period of at least 5 years. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2011 Mar-Apr; 26 (2): 304–318. PubMed Abstract 6. Heintze SD, Monreal D, Rousson V: Fatigue resistance of denture teeth. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2016 Jan; 53 : 373–383. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Robison NE, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, et al. : Failure strengths of denture teeth fabricated on injection molded or compression molded denture base resins. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016 Aug; 116 (2): 292–299. Publisher Full Text 8. Gad MM, Alalawi H, Akhtar S, et al. : Strength and Wear Behavior of Three-Dimensional Printed and Prefabricated Denture Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Analysis. Eur. J. Dent. 2023 Oct; 17 (4): 1248–1256. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Chung YJ, Park JM, Kim TH, et al. : 3D Printing of Resin Material for Denture Artificial Teeth: Chipping and Indirect Tensile Fracture Resistance. Materials (Basel). 2018 Sep 21; 11 (10): 1798. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 10. Cha HS, Park JM, Kim TH, et al. : Wear resistance of 3D-printed denture tooth resin opposing zirconia and metal antagonists. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020 Sep; 124 (3): 387–394. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 11. Alghazzawi TF: Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2016 Apr; 60 (2): 72–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 12. Gad MM, Abdullah Alzaki F, Ahmed Abuwarwar F, et al. : Impact of printing layer thickness on the flexural strength of nanocomposite 3D printed resins: An in vitro comparative study. Saudi. Dent. J. 2024 Oct; 36 (10): 1307–1312. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 13. AlGhamdi MA, Alatiyyah FM, Dawood ZHA, et al. : Flexural strength of 3D-printed nanocomposite provisional resins: Impact of SiO 2 and ZrO 2 nanoparticles and printing orientations in vitro. J. Prosthodont. 2025 Jun; 34 (5): 500–510. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 14. Dimitrova M, Kazakova R, Vlahova A: Comparative Study of the Fracture Resistance of 3D-Printed and Prefabricated Artificial Teeth for Removable Dentures. Polymers (Basel). 2024 Nov 30; 16 (23): 3381. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 15. Al-Thobity AM, Gad MM: Effect of silicon dioxide nanoparticles on the flexural strength of heat-polymerized acrylic denture base material: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi. Dent. J. 2021 Dec; 33 (8): 775–783. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 16. Kim HS, Jang W, Im YG, et al. : Antibacterial Effect of Zirconia Nanoparticles on Polyethyl Methacrylate Resin for Provisional Crowns. Int. J. Nanomedicine. 2022 Dec; 17 (17): 6551–6560. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 17. Ahmed Teama EMAmin Rashad HM, Mohamed Shakal EAE, et al. : Clinical and microbial study of reinforced 3D-printed maxillary denture base resin: a randomized trial. BMC Oral Health. 2025 Jul 17; 25 (1): 1192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 18. Aati S, Akram Z, Ngo H, Fawzy AS. Development of 3D printed resin reinforced with modified ZrO 2 nanoparticles for long-term provisional dental restorations.Dent. Mater.2021 Jun; 37 (6): e360–e374. Epub 2021 Mar 1. Publisher Full Text PubMed Abstract | 19. Zidan S, Silikas N, Al-Nasrawi S, et al. : Chemical Characterisation of Silanised Zirconia Nanoparticles and Their Effects on the Properties of PMMA-Zirconia Nanocomposites. Materials. 2021; 14 : 3212. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 20. Albadwi MM, Elsheikh HA, Abozaed HW, et al. : Impact of adding zirconium oxide nanoparticles to the 3D printable acrylic resin base material for implant-retained overdentures: A clinical comparative parallel study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2025 Nov; 134 (5): 1787–1796. Publisher Full Text 21. Abushowmi T, Alalawi H, Abualsaud R, et al. : Impact of silicon dioxide and hydroxyapatite nanoparticles on the flexural strength and surface properties of 3D-printed denture base resins: An in vitro study. J. Prosthodont. 2025 Nov 3. Publisher Full Text 22. Chen D, Jin G, Zhang Z, et al. : Effects of silica particle size on the mechanical, surface and printing-trueness properties of 3D-printing dental resin. Sci. Rep. 2025 Oct 13; 15 (1): 35644. Publisher Full Text 23. Alshaikh AA, Khattar A, Almindil IA, et al. : 3D-Printed Nanocomposite Denture-Base Resins: Effect of ZrO 2 Nanoparticles on the Mechanical and Surface Properties In Vitro. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2022 Jul 18; 12 (14): 2451. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 24. Chen R, Han Z, Huang Z, et al. : Antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity and mechanical behavior of nano-enhanced denture base resin with different kinds of inorganic antibacterial agents. Dent. Mater. J. 2017 Nov 29; 36 (6): 693–699. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 25. Kazemi M, Navarchian AH, Ahangaran F: Effects of silica surface modification with silane and poly (ethylene glycol) on flexural strength, protein-repellent, and antibacterial properties of acrylic dental nanocomposites. Dent. Mater. 2023 Oct; 39 (10): 863–871. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 26. Gad MM, Alghamdi R, Al-Ghamdi R, et al. : Wear and Fracture Resistance of 3D-Printed Denture Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study. J. Prosthodont. 2023 Feb; 32 (2): 170–177. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 27. Garcia IM, Souza VS, Balhaddad AA, et al. : Ionic Liquid-Based Silane for SiO 2 Nanoparticles: A Versatile Coupling Agent for Dental Resins. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2024 Jul 3; 16 (26): 34057–34068. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 28. Morresi AL, D’Amario M, Capogreco M, et al. : Thermal cycling for restorative materials: does a standardized protocol exist in laboratory testing? A literature review. J. Mech. Beh Bio. Mats. 2014; 29 : 295–308. Publisher Full Text 29. Ghavami-Lahiji M, Firouzmanesh M, Bagheri H, et al. : The effect of thermocycling on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of a microhybrid dental resin composite. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2018 Apr 26; 43 (2): e26. Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 30. Gad MM, Al-Harbi FA, Akhtar S, et al. : 3D-Printable Denture Base Resin Containing SiO 2 Nanoparticles: An In Vitro Analysis of Mechanical and Surface Properties. J. Prosthodont. 2022 Dec; 31 (9): 784–790. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 31. Al-Dulaijan YA: Evaluation of the Effects of Different Polishing Protocols on the Surface Characterizations of 3D-Printed Acrylic Denture Base Resins: An In Vitro Study. Polymers. 2023; 15 : 2913. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 32. Piedra-Cascón W, Krishnamurthy VR, Att W, et al. : 3D printing parameters, supporting structures, slicing, and post-processing procedures of vat-polymerization additive manufacturing technologies: A narrative review. J. Dent. 2021 Jun; 109 : 103630. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 33. Dzhondrova I, Liondev I, Taneva I, et al. : Effect of Printing Orientation and Post-Curing Time on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Denture Base Resin. J. Funct. Biomater. 2025 Dec 19; 17 (1): 1. Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 34. Baytur S, Diken Turksayar AA: Effects of post-polymerization conditions on color properties, surface roughness, and flexural strength of 3D-printed permanent resin material after thermal aging. J. Prosthodont. 2025 Mar; 34 (3): 298–307. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 35. Rizzante FAP, Qian Z, Magão PH, et al. : Influence of polishing methods on the physical properties of temporary restorations. Odontology. 2025 Sep 15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 36. Qi K, Hada T, Ren X, et al. : Effects of post-polymerization conditions on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed dental resin nanocomposite. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2025 Nov 18; 69 (4): 553–561. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 37. Gale MS, Darvell BW: Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J. Dent. 1999; 27 : 89–99. 38. Blackburn C, Rask H, Awada A: Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD-CAM materials after accelerated aging. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018 Jun; 119 (6): 954–958. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 39. Almedarham RF, Al Dawood ZH, Alatiyyah FM, et al. : Flexural properties of additive manufactured resin designated for interim fixed dental prosthesis: Effect of nanoparticles, build direction, and artificial aging. Saudi. Dent. J. 2024 Nov; 36 (11): 1417–1424. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 40. Ellakany P, Fouda SM, Mahrous AA, et al. : Influence of CAD/CAM Milling and 3D-Printing Fabrication Methods on the Mechanical Properties of 3-Unit Interim Fixed Dental Prosthesis after Thermo-Mechanical Aging Process. Polymers. 2022; 14 : 4103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 41. Alshamrani A, Alhotan A, Kelly E, et al. : Mechanical and Biocompatibility Properties of 3D-Printed Dental Resin Reinforced with Glass Silica and Zirconia Nanoparticles: In vitro Study. Polymers (Basel). 2023 May 30; 15 (11): 2523. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 42. Alhotan A, Yates J, Zidan S, et al. : Behaviour of PMMA Resin Composites Incorporated with Nanoparticles or Fibre following Prolonged Water Storage. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2021 Dec 20; 11 (12): 3453. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 43. Yan Y, Chen C, Chen B, et al. : Effects of hydrothermal aging, thermal cycling, and water storage on the mechanical properties of a machinable resin-based composite containing nano-zirconia fillers. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020 Feb; 102 :103522. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 44. Fouda SM, Gad MM, Abualsaud R, et al. : Flexural Properties and Hardness of CAD-CAM Denture Base Materials. J. Prosthodont. 2023 Apr; 32 (4): 318–324. Publisher Full Text 45. Alshahrani FA, Gad MM, Al-Thobity AM, et al. : Effect of treated zirconium dioxide nanoparticles on the flexural properties of autopolymerized resin for interim fixed restorations: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2023 Aug; 130 (2): 257–264. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 46. Alzayyat ST, Almutiri GA, Aljandan JK, et al. : Effects of SiO 2 Incorporation on the Flexural Properties of a Denture Base Resin: An in vitro Study. Eur. J. Dent. 2022 Feb; 16 (1): 188–194. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 47. Kim SH, Choi YS, Kang KH, et al. : Effects of thermal and mechanical cycling on the mechanical strength and surface properties of dental CAD-CAM restorative materials. J .Prosthet. Dent. 2022 Jul; 128 (1): 79–88. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 48. Gad MM, Alshehri SZ, Alhamid SA, et al. : Water Sorption, Solubility, and Translucency of 3D-Printed Denture Base Resins. Dent. J. 2022; 10 : 42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 49. Izzettinoglu E, Eroglu E: Assessing the impact of surface treatment, aging, and post-curing conditions on the water sorption and solubility of 3D-printed denture base resins compared to conventional and milled alternatives. BMC Oral Health. 2025 Oct 29; 25 (1): 1698. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 50. Hamanaka I, Iwamoto M, Lassila L, et al. : Influence of water sorption on mechanical properties of injection-molded thermoplastic denture base resins. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2014 Nov; 72 (8): 859–865. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 51. Borges ALS, Dal Piva AMO, Moecke SE, et al. : Polymerization Shrinkage, Hygroscopic Expansion, Elastic Modulus and Degree of Conversion of Different Composites for Dental Application. J. Compos. Sci. 2021; 5 : 322. Publisher Full Text 52. Gad MM, Fouda SM: Factors affecting flexural strength of 3D-printed resins: A systematic review. J. Prosthodont. 2023 Apr; 32 (S1): 96–110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 53. Revilla-León M, Özcan M: Additive Manufacturing Technologies Used for Processing Polymers: Current Status and Potential Application in Prosthetic Dentistry. J. Prosthodont. 2019 Feb; 28 (2): 146–158. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 54. Wu S, Komagamine Y, Hada T, et al. : Effects of high temperature with pressure polymerization on the physical and mechanical properties and dimensional changes of 3D-printed denture teeth resin. BMC Oral Health. 2025 Oct 9; 25 (1): 1580. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 55. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, et al. : 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent. Mater. 2018 Feb; 34 (2): 192–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 56. Gekle S, Mayinger F, Kreitmair U, et al. : Impact of different post-polymerization protocols on the material properties of three printed dental resins. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2025 Dec; 172 : 107164. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 57. Almansour SH, Alkhawaja JA, Khattar A, et al. : The Effect of Different Beverages on the Color Stability of Nanocomposite 3D-Printed Denture Base Resins. Prosthesis. 2024; 6 (5): 1002–1016. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 10 Sep 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of Genetic Research, Institute for Research and Medical Consultations (IRMC), Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 3 Assistant Professor of Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University College for Boys' Faculty of Dental Medicine Assiut, Asyut, Assiut Governorate, Egypt 4 Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 5 Department of Biophysics Research, Institute for Research and Medical Consultations (IRMC), Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University Institute for Research and Medical Consultations, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 6 Department of Dental Education, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 7 Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia 8 Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia Farah Y. Alshaikhnasser Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Shaymaa Y. Alboryh Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Zainab H. Al Dawood Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Rawan F. Almedarham Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Fatimah A. Alhassan Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Fatimah M. Alatiyyah Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Essam A. Nassar Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Sultan Akhtar Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Soban Q. Khan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Ahmed Tharwat Al Ammary Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Mohammed M. Gad Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (4) version 4 Revised Published: 14 May 2026, 14:894 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166989.4 version 3 Revised Published: 23 Mar 2026, 14:894 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166989.3 version 2 Revised Published: 23 Feb 2026, 14:894 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166989.2 version 1 Published: 10 Sep 2025, 14:894 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166989.1 Copyright © 2026 Y. Alshaikhnasser F et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Y. Alshaikhnasser F, Y. Alboryh S, H. Al Dawood Z et al. Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.166989.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 23 Mar 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Aly YM. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r470325 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v3#referee-response-470325 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Apr 2026 Yasser Mohamed Aly , Oral Rehabilitation Sciences, Beirut Arab University (Ringgold ID: 67025), Beirut, Beirut Governorate, Lebanon Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r470325 Review report The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Abstract: 1- The ... Continue reading READ ALL Review report The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Abstract: 1- The sample allocation and consistency are not clear in the method, particularly the exact subgrouping in relation to the total sample size (sample allocation must be mathematically consistent). 2- Half of the specimens were thermally aged; what about the other half being tested directly following the same grouping? This should be mentioned in a clear, straightforward way. 3- Results are written in a systematic way and are clear for the readers; however, the values reported for fracture resistance for 3D-printed resins are mentioned in MPa, which is not logical. It should be in newtons (N) rather than MPa. This should be clarified and corrected, as in the literature the range for fracture resistance in MPa is 70 to 200 MPa, not in the thousands. Introduction: The introduction effectively establishes the clinical importance of fracture resistance in denture teeth and appropriately presents additive manufacturing (3D printing) as a modern alternative to conventional fabrication methods. It also recognizes thermal aging as a critical factor influencing material performance and introduces zirconia and silica nanoparticles as potential reinforcement agents with beneficial mechanical effects. 1- The research gap is not stated clearly, particularly regarding what is currently present and the flaws that need to be enhanced or modified. 2- The first two paragraphs are nearly the same; rephrasing to avoid repetition is necessary. 3- Limited justification of study variables: The rationale for selecting specific nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials is not clearly explained. 4- The mechanical improvements associated with zirconia and silica nanoparticles are presented as universal outcomes without acknowledging that effects depend on factors such as concentration, dispersion, and material compatibility. 5- The third null hypothesis describing interaction effects is vague and unclear and should specify which variables are interacting. Methods: The methodology demonstrates a structured experimental approach but lacks critical details regarding sample size justification, group allocation clarity, nanoparticle dispersion validation, and specimen standardization, which may affect reproducibility and internal validity. Sample size estimation is not relevant to the current investigation. The authors have nearly two tested materials, then five testing parameters, each divided into two subgroups; ten specimens for each subgroup may not be adequate for generalization. Alternatively, the authors should mention similar studies regarding the number of groups and subgroups used for calculating their sample size. 1- Although 220 specimens were reported, the distribution of samples among subgroups (control vs. nanoparticle groups, thermocycled vs. non-thermocycled) is not clearly described, making the experimental design difficult to follow. 2- Lack of randomization description: The method does not state whether specimens were randomly assigned to groups, which raises concerns about selection bias. 3- No control for nanoparticle dispersion quality: The method states mixing for 30 minutes but does not include verification techniques such as ultrasonication, SEM, or particle distribution analysis (more details regarding the silanization process and the mixing technique employed are needed). 4- Critical parameters such as temperature range, dwell time, transfer time, and the number of cycles equivalent to clinical aging should be mentioned in this section. 5- The rationale for dividing specimens into thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups is implied. However, considering that all artificial teeth intraorally will be subjected to oral cavity changes, please clarify why some specimens were not thermally aged. Results: The Results section presents extensive and useful data but suffers from limited integration of mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, which reduces clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Discussion: The discussion mostly reports agreement with previous studies but does not critically analyze differences and rarely discusses methodological variations. 1- Several mechanisms—such as water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging effects—are repeatedly described, resulting in an overly lengthy discussion that could be streamlined for clarity and focus. 2- Insufficient consideration of confounding variables: Potential influences such as post-curing conditions, printing parameters, and degree of conversion are acknowledged but not fully controlled or quantitatively assessed, which may affect the interpretation of mechanical property changes. Why were prefabricated teeth used in the current study without even mentioning how they were fabricated or which manufacturing technique was used, especially since the reported values of prefabricated teeth are much higher than those of the two 3D-printed resin teeth groups? Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Prosthodontics, Material science related to my specialty. Digital and Implant dentistry I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Aly YM. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r470325 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v3#referee-response-470325 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 May 2026 Mohammed Gad , Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 14 May 2026 Author Response The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Response: ... Continue reading The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Abstract: Comment 1 - The sample allocation and consistency are not clear in the method, particularly the exact subgrouping in relation to the total sample size (sample allocation must be mathematically consistent). Response: Thank you for your comment. sample allocations and distribution were revised and addressed in the abstract and methods as well as modified figure 1. Comment 2- Half of the specimens were thermally aged; what about the other half being tested directly following the same grouping? This should be mentioned in a clear, straightforward way. Response : Thank you for your comment. specimen distribution for TA and no TA was clarified and how the specimens aged or immediately tested were added to methods. Please, see highlighted parts in the thermal aging section in methodology. Comment 3- Results are written in a systematic way and are clear for the readers; however, the values reported for fracture resistance for 3D-printed resins are mentioned in MPa, which is not logical. It should be in newtons (N) rather than MPa. This should be clarified and corrected, as in the literature the range for fracture resistance in MPa is 70 to 200 MPa, not in the thousands. Response : Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. The unit per tested property was revised and modified through the text, tables, and figures. Introduction: The introduction effectively establishes the clinical importance of fracture resistance in denture teeth and appropriately presents additive manufacturing (3D printing) as a modern alternative to conventional fabrication methods. It also recognizes thermal aging as a critical factor influencing material performance and introduces zirconia and silica nanoparticles as potential reinforcement agents with beneficial mechanical effects. Comment 1- The research gap is not stated clearly, particularly regarding what is currently present and the flaws that need to be enhanced or modified. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The research gap has been revised to more clearly distinguish between what is currently available in literature and the specific limitations that require further investigation. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that previous studies have primarily evaluated nanoparticle incorporation in 3D-printed resins using simplified specimen geometries and without focusing on denture teeth applications or clinically relevant conditions. In addition, limited data is available regarding the effect of specific nanoparticles, such as ZNPs and SNPs, at different concentrations. Furthermore, direct comparisons with prefabricated denture teeth and the evaluation of material performance under simulated aging conditions remain insufficiently explored. These points have now been explicitly stated to better define the research gap and justify the aim of the present study. Please, see highlighted paragraph for research problems at the end of introduction Comment 2- The first two paragraphs are nearly the same; rephrasing to avoid repetition is necessary. Response : Thank you for your comment. The first two paragraphs have been carefully revised to eliminate repetition and improve clarity. While both paragraphs were retained to address distinct aspects the first focusing on denture teeth and the second on printing technology, the content has been refined to ensure smoother flow and better coherence between them. Comment 3- Limited justification of study variables: The rationale for selecting specific nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials is not clearly explained. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have clarified the rationale behind selecting the nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials. In the revised manuscript, we explain that the chosen nanoparticles were selected based on published evidence demonstrating their ability to enhance the mechanical, physical, or antimicrobial properties of denture base resins. The concentration ranges were based on previous studies showing that low‑to‑moderate nanoparticle loading improves performance without causing agglomeration or negatively affecting printability. These explanations have now been added to strengthen the scientific basis of the study. Comment 4- The mechanical improvements associated with zirconia and silica nanoparticles are presented as universal outcomes without acknowledging that effects depend on factors such as concentration, dispersion, and material compatibility. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The introduction has been revised to clarify the mechanical effects of ZNPs and SNPs nanoparticles in terms of nanoparticle concentration, dispersion quality, surface treatment, and compatibility with the resin matrix. Comment 5- The third null hypothesis describing interaction effects is vague and unclear and should specify which variables are interacting. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the third null hypothesis required clarification. Accordingly, it has been revised to explicitly specify the interacting variables. The updated hypothesis now states that there is no significant interaction effect between nanoparticle type, nanoparticle concentration, and thermal aging condition on the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of the tested materials. This clarification has been incorporated into the manuscript to improve precision and readability. Methods: Comment : The methodology demonstrates a structured experimental approach but lacks critical details regarding sample size justification, group allocation clarity, nanoparticle dispersion validation, and specimen standardization, which may affect reproducibility and internal validity. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations, which have significantly strengthened the methodological quality of the study. In response, we have carefully revised the methodology section to address the raised concerns. Specifically, additional details have been provided regarding sample size considerations, clearer description of group allocation, clarification of nanoparticle dispersion procedures, and improved standardization of specimen preparation. Comment : Sample size estimation is not relevant to the current investigation. The authors have nearly two tested materials, then five testing parameters, each divided into two subgroups; ten specimens for each subgroup may not be adequate for generalization. Alternatively, the authors should mention similar studies regarding the number of groups and subgroups used for calculating their sample size. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding sample size estimation. In this study, the sample size was determined using data from a closely related published investigation that evaluated the fracture resistance of 3D‑printed denture teeth fabricated from the same resin system but without nanoparticle reinforcement. Because fracture resistance was also the primary outcome in our work, the mean and standard deviation reported in that study provided the most appropriate and directly comparable estimates of variability for calculating the minimum required sample size. Although the referenced study did not include nanoparticle‑modified groups, it examined the same material category, printing technology, and mechanical test, making it the closest available model for estimating variability in fracture resistance. This approach is commonly used in in‑vitro dental materials research when identical datasets are not available. The sample size calculation section has been revised and expanded to improve clarity and accuracy. Comment 1- Although 220 specimens were reported, the distribution of samples among subgroups (control vs. nanoparticle groups, thermocycled vs. non-thermocycled) is not clearly described, making the experimental design difficult to follow. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The distribution of specimens among the different subgroups has now been clearly clarified in the revised manuscript. Detailed descriptions of the grouping have been added to the methods sections. In addition, the study design figure and flowchart have been revised to visually illustrate the sample allocation and experimental workflow more clearly. Comment 2- Lack of randomization description: The method does not state whether specimens were randomly assigned to groups, which raises concerns about selection bias. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In the present study, specimen grouping was not based on random allocation but was predetermined according to nanoparticle type and concentration for each 3D-printed resin. Therefore, randomization was not applicable, as each group represented a specific experimental condition defined by the study design. All specimens were fabricated under standardized conditions to minimize variability and reduce potential bias. Comment 3- No control for nanoparticle dispersion quality: The method states mixing for 30 minutes but does not include verification techniques such as ultrasonication, SEM, or particle distribution analysis (more details regarding the silanization process and the mixing technique employed are needed). Response : Thank you for your comment. Regarding mixing procedures, we followed the previous studies adding NP to 3D printed resins. More details about adding NPs to fluid resins were added and supported with references. In addition to the details of silanization process. Please, see highlighted changes in the methodology. Comment 4- Critical parameters such as temperature range, dwell time, transfer time, and the number of cycles equivalent to clinical aging should be mentioned in this section. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. all details about TC protocols added and supported with references Comment 5- The rationale for dividing specimens into thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups is implied. However, considering that all artificial teeth intraorally will be subjected to oral cavity changes, please clarify why some specimens were not thermally aged. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The inclusion of both thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups was intentional to allow a baseline evaluation of the material properties prior to aging and to enable direct comparison with post-aging performance. The non-thermally aged specimens represent the initial mechanical behavior of the materials immediately after fabrication, while the thermally aged groups simulate the effects of intraoral temperature fluctuations over time. This approach is widely used in in vitro studies to assess the extent to which aging influences material degradation. By comparing both conditions, it becomes possible to determine not only the absolute performance of each group but also the magnitude of change induced by thermal cycling. This is particularly important in the present study to evaluate whether nanoparticle incorporation improves not only the initial mechanical properties but also their stability after simulated oral aging. Accordingly, this design provides a more comprehensive understanding of material performance and durability under both baseline and simulated clinical conditions. More discussion about this point is added. Results: Comment: The Results section presents extensive and useful data but suffers from limited integration of mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, which reduces clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. We would like to clarify that the microscopic (SEM) and spectroscopic (FTIR) assessments in this study were conducted as qualitative, supportive analyses rather than quantitative outcome measures. Accordingly, these findings were presented descriptively in the Results section to complement and contextualize the mechanical data, rather than to provide statistical integration across methods. The interaction between mechanical performance, microstructural features, and chemical characterization was addressed in the Discussion section, where the relationships among these findings were synthesized and interpreted. Discussion: The discussion mostly reports agreement with previous studies but does not critically analyze differences and rarely discusses methodological variations. Comment 1- Several mechanisms such as water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging effects are repeatedly described, resulting in an overly lengthy discussion that could be streamlined for clarity and focus. Response : Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the discussion section contained repeated descriptions of water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging mechanisms. In response, we have revised the section to streamline the narrative, remove redundancies, and present these mechanisms more concisely. The revised Discussion now focuses on synthesizing how these degradation processes relate to the mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, improving clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Comment 2- Insufficient consideration of confounding variables: Potential influences such as post-curing conditions, printing parameters, and degree of conversion are acknowledged but not fully controlled or quantitatively assessed, which may affect the interpretation of mechanical property changes. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding potential confounding variables. In this study, factors such as post‑curing conditions and degree of conversion were addressed in the highlighted section in discussion, as the curing units used for the two resins differ in their manufacturer‑specified protocols. In contrast, parameters including layer thickness and printing orientation were fully standardized for both materials and therefore did not vary across groups. Because these conditions were controlled rather than treated as experimental variables, they were not considered confounding factors that could obscure the interpretation of the mechanical outcomes. Comment: Why were prefabricated teeth used in the current study without even mentioning how they were fabricated or which manufacturing technique was used, especially since the reported values of prefabricated teeth are much higher than those of the two 3D-printed resin teeth groups? Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. Prefabricated teeth were included in the present study as a reference group because they represent the most used materials in conventional denture fabrication and are considered a clinical benchmark for comparison. The primary objective was to compare the mechanical performance of 3D-printed denture teeth with materials currently used in routine clinical practice. Regarding their fabrication, prefabricated denture teeth are industrially manufactured under controlled conditions using highly cross-linked acrylic resins and optimized polymerization processes, which typically result in superior mechanical properties. This may explain the higher values observed compared to the 3D-printed groups. The manuscript has been revised to clarify the type and commercial source of the prefabricated teeth and to acknowledge their manufacturing characteristics as a factor influencing the results. The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Abstract: Comment 1 - The sample allocation and consistency are not clear in the method, particularly the exact subgrouping in relation to the total sample size (sample allocation must be mathematically consistent). Response: Thank you for your comment. sample allocations and distribution were revised and addressed in the abstract and methods as well as modified figure 1. Comment 2- Half of the specimens were thermally aged; what about the other half being tested directly following the same grouping? This should be mentioned in a clear, straightforward way. Response : Thank you for your comment. specimen distribution for TA and no TA was clarified and how the specimens aged or immediately tested were added to methods. Please, see highlighted parts in the thermal aging section in methodology. Comment 3- Results are written in a systematic way and are clear for the readers; however, the values reported for fracture resistance for 3D-printed resins are mentioned in MPa, which is not logical. It should be in newtons (N) rather than MPa. This should be clarified and corrected, as in the literature the range for fracture resistance in MPa is 70 to 200 MPa, not in the thousands. Response : Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. The unit per tested property was revised and modified through the text, tables, and figures. Introduction: The introduction effectively establishes the clinical importance of fracture resistance in denture teeth and appropriately presents additive manufacturing (3D printing) as a modern alternative to conventional fabrication methods. It also recognizes thermal aging as a critical factor influencing material performance and introduces zirconia and silica nanoparticles as potential reinforcement agents with beneficial mechanical effects. Comment 1- The research gap is not stated clearly, particularly regarding what is currently present and the flaws that need to be enhanced or modified. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The research gap has been revised to more clearly distinguish between what is currently available in literature and the specific limitations that require further investigation. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that previous studies have primarily evaluated nanoparticle incorporation in 3D-printed resins using simplified specimen geometries and without focusing on denture teeth applications or clinically relevant conditions. In addition, limited data is available regarding the effect of specific nanoparticles, such as ZNPs and SNPs, at different concentrations. Furthermore, direct comparisons with prefabricated denture teeth and the evaluation of material performance under simulated aging conditions remain insufficiently explored. These points have now been explicitly stated to better define the research gap and justify the aim of the present study. Please, see highlighted paragraph for research problems at the end of introduction Comment 2- The first two paragraphs are nearly the same; rephrasing to avoid repetition is necessary. Response : Thank you for your comment. The first two paragraphs have been carefully revised to eliminate repetition and improve clarity. While both paragraphs were retained to address distinct aspects the first focusing on denture teeth and the second on printing technology, the content has been refined to ensure smoother flow and better coherence between them. Comment 3- Limited justification of study variables: The rationale for selecting specific nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials is not clearly explained. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have clarified the rationale behind selecting the nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials. In the revised manuscript, we explain that the chosen nanoparticles were selected based on published evidence demonstrating their ability to enhance the mechanical, physical, or antimicrobial properties of denture base resins. The concentration ranges were based on previous studies showing that low‑to‑moderate nanoparticle loading improves performance without causing agglomeration or negatively affecting printability. These explanations have now been added to strengthen the scientific basis of the study. Comment 4- The mechanical improvements associated with zirconia and silica nanoparticles are presented as universal outcomes without acknowledging that effects depend on factors such as concentration, dispersion, and material compatibility. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The introduction has been revised to clarify the mechanical effects of ZNPs and SNPs nanoparticles in terms of nanoparticle concentration, dispersion quality, surface treatment, and compatibility with the resin matrix. Comment 5- The third null hypothesis describing interaction effects is vague and unclear and should specify which variables are interacting. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the third null hypothesis required clarification. Accordingly, it has been revised to explicitly specify the interacting variables. The updated hypothesis now states that there is no significant interaction effect between nanoparticle type, nanoparticle concentration, and thermal aging condition on the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of the tested materials. This clarification has been incorporated into the manuscript to improve precision and readability. Methods: Comment : The methodology demonstrates a structured experimental approach but lacks critical details regarding sample size justification, group allocation clarity, nanoparticle dispersion validation, and specimen standardization, which may affect reproducibility and internal validity. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations, which have significantly strengthened the methodological quality of the study. In response, we have carefully revised the methodology section to address the raised concerns. Specifically, additional details have been provided regarding sample size considerations, clearer description of group allocation, clarification of nanoparticle dispersion procedures, and improved standardization of specimen preparation. Comment : Sample size estimation is not relevant to the current investigation. The authors have nearly two tested materials, then five testing parameters, each divided into two subgroups; ten specimens for each subgroup may not be adequate for generalization. Alternatively, the authors should mention similar studies regarding the number of groups and subgroups used for calculating their sample size. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding sample size estimation. In this study, the sample size was determined using data from a closely related published investigation that evaluated the fracture resistance of 3D‑printed denture teeth fabricated from the same resin system but without nanoparticle reinforcement. Because fracture resistance was also the primary outcome in our work, the mean and standard deviation reported in that study provided the most appropriate and directly comparable estimates of variability for calculating the minimum required sample size. Although the referenced study did not include nanoparticle‑modified groups, it examined the same material category, printing technology, and mechanical test, making it the closest available model for estimating variability in fracture resistance. This approach is commonly used in in‑vitro dental materials research when identical datasets are not available. The sample size calculation section has been revised and expanded to improve clarity and accuracy. Comment 1- Although 220 specimens were reported, the distribution of samples among subgroups (control vs. nanoparticle groups, thermocycled vs. non-thermocycled) is not clearly described, making the experimental design difficult to follow. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The distribution of specimens among the different subgroups has now been clearly clarified in the revised manuscript. Detailed descriptions of the grouping have been added to the methods sections. In addition, the study design figure and flowchart have been revised to visually illustrate the sample allocation and experimental workflow more clearly. Comment 2- Lack of randomization description: The method does not state whether specimens were randomly assigned to groups, which raises concerns about selection bias. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In the present study, specimen grouping was not based on random allocation but was predetermined according to nanoparticle type and concentration for each 3D-printed resin. Therefore, randomization was not applicable, as each group represented a specific experimental condition defined by the study design. All specimens were fabricated under standardized conditions to minimize variability and reduce potential bias. Comment 3- No control for nanoparticle dispersion quality: The method states mixing for 30 minutes but does not include verification techniques such as ultrasonication, SEM, or particle distribution analysis (more details regarding the silanization process and the mixing technique employed are needed). Response : Thank you for your comment. Regarding mixing procedures, we followed the previous studies adding NP to 3D printed resins. More details about adding NPs to fluid resins were added and supported with references. In addition to the details of silanization process. Please, see highlighted changes in the methodology. Comment 4- Critical parameters such as temperature range, dwell time, transfer time, and the number of cycles equivalent to clinical aging should be mentioned in this section. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. all details about TC protocols added and supported with references Comment 5- The rationale for dividing specimens into thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups is implied. However, considering that all artificial teeth intraorally will be subjected to oral cavity changes, please clarify why some specimens were not thermally aged. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The inclusion of both thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups was intentional to allow a baseline evaluation of the material properties prior to aging and to enable direct comparison with post-aging performance. The non-thermally aged specimens represent the initial mechanical behavior of the materials immediately after fabrication, while the thermally aged groups simulate the effects of intraoral temperature fluctuations over time. This approach is widely used in in vitro studies to assess the extent to which aging influences material degradation. By comparing both conditions, it becomes possible to determine not only the absolute performance of each group but also the magnitude of change induced by thermal cycling. This is particularly important in the present study to evaluate whether nanoparticle incorporation improves not only the initial mechanical properties but also their stability after simulated oral aging. Accordingly, this design provides a more comprehensive understanding of material performance and durability under both baseline and simulated clinical conditions. More discussion about this point is added. Results: Comment: The Results section presents extensive and useful data but suffers from limited integration of mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, which reduces clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. We would like to clarify that the microscopic (SEM) and spectroscopic (FTIR) assessments in this study were conducted as qualitative, supportive analyses rather than quantitative outcome measures. Accordingly, these findings were presented descriptively in the Results section to complement and contextualize the mechanical data, rather than to provide statistical integration across methods. The interaction between mechanical performance, microstructural features, and chemical characterization was addressed in the Discussion section, where the relationships among these findings were synthesized and interpreted. Discussion: The discussion mostly reports agreement with previous studies but does not critically analyze differences and rarely discusses methodological variations. Comment 1- Several mechanisms such as water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging effects are repeatedly described, resulting in an overly lengthy discussion that could be streamlined for clarity and focus. Response : Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the discussion section contained repeated descriptions of water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging mechanisms. In response, we have revised the section to streamline the narrative, remove redundancies, and present these mechanisms more concisely. The revised Discussion now focuses on synthesizing how these degradation processes relate to the mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, improving clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Comment 2- Insufficient consideration of confounding variables: Potential influences such as post-curing conditions, printing parameters, and degree of conversion are acknowledged but not fully controlled or quantitatively assessed, which may affect the interpretation of mechanical property changes. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding potential confounding variables. In this study, factors such as post‑curing conditions and degree of conversion were addressed in the highlighted section in discussion, as the curing units used for the two resins differ in their manufacturer‑specified protocols. In contrast, parameters including layer thickness and printing orientation were fully standardized for both materials and therefore did not vary across groups. Because these conditions were controlled rather than treated as experimental variables, they were not considered confounding factors that could obscure the interpretation of the mechanical outcomes. Comment: Why were prefabricated teeth used in the current study without even mentioning how they were fabricated or which manufacturing technique was used, especially since the reported values of prefabricated teeth are much higher than those of the two 3D-printed resin teeth groups? Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. Prefabricated teeth were included in the present study as a reference group because they represent the most used materials in conventional denture fabrication and are considered a clinical benchmark for comparison. The primary objective was to compare the mechanical performance of 3D-printed denture teeth with materials currently used in routine clinical practice. Regarding their fabrication, prefabricated denture teeth are industrially manufactured under controlled conditions using highly cross-linked acrylic resins and optimized polymerization processes, which typically result in superior mechanical properties. This may explain the higher values observed compared to the 3D-printed groups. The manuscript has been revised to clarify the type and commercial source of the prefabricated teeth and to acknowledge their manufacturing characteristics as a factor influencing the results. Competing Interests: none Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 May 2026 Mohammed Gad , Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 14 May 2026 Author Response The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Response: ... Continue reading The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Abstract: Comment 1 - The sample allocation and consistency are not clear in the method, particularly the exact subgrouping in relation to the total sample size (sample allocation must be mathematically consistent). Response: Thank you for your comment. sample allocations and distribution were revised and addressed in the abstract and methods as well as modified figure 1. Comment 2- Half of the specimens were thermally aged; what about the other half being tested directly following the same grouping? This should be mentioned in a clear, straightforward way. Response : Thank you for your comment. specimen distribution for TA and no TA was clarified and how the specimens aged or immediately tested were added to methods. Please, see highlighted parts in the thermal aging section in methodology. Comment 3- Results are written in a systematic way and are clear for the readers; however, the values reported for fracture resistance for 3D-printed resins are mentioned in MPa, which is not logical. It should be in newtons (N) rather than MPa. This should be clarified and corrected, as in the literature the range for fracture resistance in MPa is 70 to 200 MPa, not in the thousands. Response : Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. The unit per tested property was revised and modified through the text, tables, and figures. Introduction: The introduction effectively establishes the clinical importance of fracture resistance in denture teeth and appropriately presents additive manufacturing (3D printing) as a modern alternative to conventional fabrication methods. It also recognizes thermal aging as a critical factor influencing material performance and introduces zirconia and silica nanoparticles as potential reinforcement agents with beneficial mechanical effects. Comment 1- The research gap is not stated clearly, particularly regarding what is currently present and the flaws that need to be enhanced or modified. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The research gap has been revised to more clearly distinguish between what is currently available in literature and the specific limitations that require further investigation. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that previous studies have primarily evaluated nanoparticle incorporation in 3D-printed resins using simplified specimen geometries and without focusing on denture teeth applications or clinically relevant conditions. In addition, limited data is available regarding the effect of specific nanoparticles, such as ZNPs and SNPs, at different concentrations. Furthermore, direct comparisons with prefabricated denture teeth and the evaluation of material performance under simulated aging conditions remain insufficiently explored. These points have now been explicitly stated to better define the research gap and justify the aim of the present study. Please, see highlighted paragraph for research problems at the end of introduction Comment 2- The first two paragraphs are nearly the same; rephrasing to avoid repetition is necessary. Response : Thank you for your comment. The first two paragraphs have been carefully revised to eliminate repetition and improve clarity. While both paragraphs were retained to address distinct aspects the first focusing on denture teeth and the second on printing technology, the content has been refined to ensure smoother flow and better coherence between them. Comment 3- Limited justification of study variables: The rationale for selecting specific nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials is not clearly explained. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have clarified the rationale behind selecting the nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials. In the revised manuscript, we explain that the chosen nanoparticles were selected based on published evidence demonstrating their ability to enhance the mechanical, physical, or antimicrobial properties of denture base resins. The concentration ranges were based on previous studies showing that low‑to‑moderate nanoparticle loading improves performance without causing agglomeration or negatively affecting printability. These explanations have now been added to strengthen the scientific basis of the study. Comment 4- The mechanical improvements associated with zirconia and silica nanoparticles are presented as universal outcomes without acknowledging that effects depend on factors such as concentration, dispersion, and material compatibility. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The introduction has been revised to clarify the mechanical effects of ZNPs and SNPs nanoparticles in terms of nanoparticle concentration, dispersion quality, surface treatment, and compatibility with the resin matrix. Comment 5- The third null hypothesis describing interaction effects is vague and unclear and should specify which variables are interacting. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the third null hypothesis required clarification. Accordingly, it has been revised to explicitly specify the interacting variables. The updated hypothesis now states that there is no significant interaction effect between nanoparticle type, nanoparticle concentration, and thermal aging condition on the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of the tested materials. This clarification has been incorporated into the manuscript to improve precision and readability. Methods: Comment : The methodology demonstrates a structured experimental approach but lacks critical details regarding sample size justification, group allocation clarity, nanoparticle dispersion validation, and specimen standardization, which may affect reproducibility and internal validity. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations, which have significantly strengthened the methodological quality of the study. In response, we have carefully revised the methodology section to address the raised concerns. Specifically, additional details have been provided regarding sample size considerations, clearer description of group allocation, clarification of nanoparticle dispersion procedures, and improved standardization of specimen preparation. Comment : Sample size estimation is not relevant to the current investigation. The authors have nearly two tested materials, then five testing parameters, each divided into two subgroups; ten specimens for each subgroup may not be adequate for generalization. Alternatively, the authors should mention similar studies regarding the number of groups and subgroups used for calculating their sample size. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding sample size estimation. In this study, the sample size was determined using data from a closely related published investigation that evaluated the fracture resistance of 3D‑printed denture teeth fabricated from the same resin system but without nanoparticle reinforcement. Because fracture resistance was also the primary outcome in our work, the mean and standard deviation reported in that study provided the most appropriate and directly comparable estimates of variability for calculating the minimum required sample size. Although the referenced study did not include nanoparticle‑modified groups, it examined the same material category, printing technology, and mechanical test, making it the closest available model for estimating variability in fracture resistance. This approach is commonly used in in‑vitro dental materials research when identical datasets are not available. The sample size calculation section has been revised and expanded to improve clarity and accuracy. Comment 1- Although 220 specimens were reported, the distribution of samples among subgroups (control vs. nanoparticle groups, thermocycled vs. non-thermocycled) is not clearly described, making the experimental design difficult to follow. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The distribution of specimens among the different subgroups has now been clearly clarified in the revised manuscript. Detailed descriptions of the grouping have been added to the methods sections. In addition, the study design figure and flowchart have been revised to visually illustrate the sample allocation and experimental workflow more clearly. Comment 2- Lack of randomization description: The method does not state whether specimens were randomly assigned to groups, which raises concerns about selection bias. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In the present study, specimen grouping was not based on random allocation but was predetermined according to nanoparticle type and concentration for each 3D-printed resin. Therefore, randomization was not applicable, as each group represented a specific experimental condition defined by the study design. All specimens were fabricated under standardized conditions to minimize variability and reduce potential bias. Comment 3- No control for nanoparticle dispersion quality: The method states mixing for 30 minutes but does not include verification techniques such as ultrasonication, SEM, or particle distribution analysis (more details regarding the silanization process and the mixing technique employed are needed). Response : Thank you for your comment. Regarding mixing procedures, we followed the previous studies adding NP to 3D printed resins. More details about adding NPs to fluid resins were added and supported with references. In addition to the details of silanization process. Please, see highlighted changes in the methodology. Comment 4- Critical parameters such as temperature range, dwell time, transfer time, and the number of cycles equivalent to clinical aging should be mentioned in this section. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. all details about TC protocols added and supported with references Comment 5- The rationale for dividing specimens into thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups is implied. However, considering that all artificial teeth intraorally will be subjected to oral cavity changes, please clarify why some specimens were not thermally aged. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The inclusion of both thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups was intentional to allow a baseline evaluation of the material properties prior to aging and to enable direct comparison with post-aging performance. The non-thermally aged specimens represent the initial mechanical behavior of the materials immediately after fabrication, while the thermally aged groups simulate the effects of intraoral temperature fluctuations over time. This approach is widely used in in vitro studies to assess the extent to which aging influences material degradation. By comparing both conditions, it becomes possible to determine not only the absolute performance of each group but also the magnitude of change induced by thermal cycling. This is particularly important in the present study to evaluate whether nanoparticle incorporation improves not only the initial mechanical properties but also their stability after simulated oral aging. Accordingly, this design provides a more comprehensive understanding of material performance and durability under both baseline and simulated clinical conditions. More discussion about this point is added. Results: Comment: The Results section presents extensive and useful data but suffers from limited integration of mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, which reduces clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. We would like to clarify that the microscopic (SEM) and spectroscopic (FTIR) assessments in this study were conducted as qualitative, supportive analyses rather than quantitative outcome measures. Accordingly, these findings were presented descriptively in the Results section to complement and contextualize the mechanical data, rather than to provide statistical integration across methods. The interaction between mechanical performance, microstructural features, and chemical characterization was addressed in the Discussion section, where the relationships among these findings were synthesized and interpreted. Discussion: The discussion mostly reports agreement with previous studies but does not critically analyze differences and rarely discusses methodological variations. Comment 1- Several mechanisms such as water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging effects are repeatedly described, resulting in an overly lengthy discussion that could be streamlined for clarity and focus. Response : Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the discussion section contained repeated descriptions of water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging mechanisms. In response, we have revised the section to streamline the narrative, remove redundancies, and present these mechanisms more concisely. The revised Discussion now focuses on synthesizing how these degradation processes relate to the mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, improving clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Comment 2- Insufficient consideration of confounding variables: Potential influences such as post-curing conditions, printing parameters, and degree of conversion are acknowledged but not fully controlled or quantitatively assessed, which may affect the interpretation of mechanical property changes. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding potential confounding variables. In this study, factors such as post‑curing conditions and degree of conversion were addressed in the highlighted section in discussion, as the curing units used for the two resins differ in their manufacturer‑specified protocols. In contrast, parameters including layer thickness and printing orientation were fully standardized for both materials and therefore did not vary across groups. Because these conditions were controlled rather than treated as experimental variables, they were not considered confounding factors that could obscure the interpretation of the mechanical outcomes. Comment: Why were prefabricated teeth used in the current study without even mentioning how they were fabricated or which manufacturing technique was used, especially since the reported values of prefabricated teeth are much higher than those of the two 3D-printed resin teeth groups? Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. Prefabricated teeth were included in the present study as a reference group because they represent the most used materials in conventional denture fabrication and are considered a clinical benchmark for comparison. The primary objective was to compare the mechanical performance of 3D-printed denture teeth with materials currently used in routine clinical practice. Regarding their fabrication, prefabricated denture teeth are industrially manufactured under controlled conditions using highly cross-linked acrylic resins and optimized polymerization processes, which typically result in superior mechanical properties. This may explain the higher values observed compared to the 3D-printed groups. The manuscript has been revised to clarify the type and commercial source of the prefabricated teeth and to acknowledge their manufacturing characteristics as a factor influencing the results. The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Abstract: Comment 1 - The sample allocation and consistency are not clear in the method, particularly the exact subgrouping in relation to the total sample size (sample allocation must be mathematically consistent). Response: Thank you for your comment. sample allocations and distribution were revised and addressed in the abstract and methods as well as modified figure 1. Comment 2- Half of the specimens were thermally aged; what about the other half being tested directly following the same grouping? This should be mentioned in a clear, straightforward way. Response : Thank you for your comment. specimen distribution for TA and no TA was clarified and how the specimens aged or immediately tested were added to methods. Please, see highlighted parts in the thermal aging section in methodology. Comment 3- Results are written in a systematic way and are clear for the readers; however, the values reported for fracture resistance for 3D-printed resins are mentioned in MPa, which is not logical. It should be in newtons (N) rather than MPa. This should be clarified and corrected, as in the literature the range for fracture resistance in MPa is 70 to 200 MPa, not in the thousands. Response : Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. The unit per tested property was revised and modified through the text, tables, and figures. Introduction: The introduction effectively establishes the clinical importance of fracture resistance in denture teeth and appropriately presents additive manufacturing (3D printing) as a modern alternative to conventional fabrication methods. It also recognizes thermal aging as a critical factor influencing material performance and introduces zirconia and silica nanoparticles as potential reinforcement agents with beneficial mechanical effects. Comment 1- The research gap is not stated clearly, particularly regarding what is currently present and the flaws that need to be enhanced or modified. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The research gap has been revised to more clearly distinguish between what is currently available in literature and the specific limitations that require further investigation. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that previous studies have primarily evaluated nanoparticle incorporation in 3D-printed resins using simplified specimen geometries and without focusing on denture teeth applications or clinically relevant conditions. In addition, limited data is available regarding the effect of specific nanoparticles, such as ZNPs and SNPs, at different concentrations. Furthermore, direct comparisons with prefabricated denture teeth and the evaluation of material performance under simulated aging conditions remain insufficiently explored. These points have now been explicitly stated to better define the research gap and justify the aim of the present study. Please, see highlighted paragraph for research problems at the end of introduction Comment 2- The first two paragraphs are nearly the same; rephrasing to avoid repetition is necessary. Response : Thank you for your comment. The first two paragraphs have been carefully revised to eliminate repetition and improve clarity. While both paragraphs were retained to address distinct aspects the first focusing on denture teeth and the second on printing technology, the content has been refined to ensure smoother flow and better coherence between them. Comment 3- Limited justification of study variables: The rationale for selecting specific nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials is not clearly explained. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have clarified the rationale behind selecting the nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials. In the revised manuscript, we explain that the chosen nanoparticles were selected based on published evidence demonstrating their ability to enhance the mechanical, physical, or antimicrobial properties of denture base resins. The concentration ranges were based on previous studies showing that low‑to‑moderate nanoparticle loading improves performance without causing agglomeration or negatively affecting printability. These explanations have now been added to strengthen the scientific basis of the study. Comment 4- The mechanical improvements associated with zirconia and silica nanoparticles are presented as universal outcomes without acknowledging that effects depend on factors such as concentration, dispersion, and material compatibility. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The introduction has been revised to clarify the mechanical effects of ZNPs and SNPs nanoparticles in terms of nanoparticle concentration, dispersion quality, surface treatment, and compatibility with the resin matrix. Comment 5- The third null hypothesis describing interaction effects is vague and unclear and should specify which variables are interacting. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the third null hypothesis required clarification. Accordingly, it has been revised to explicitly specify the interacting variables. The updated hypothesis now states that there is no significant interaction effect between nanoparticle type, nanoparticle concentration, and thermal aging condition on the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of the tested materials. This clarification has been incorporated into the manuscript to improve precision and readability. Methods: Comment : The methodology demonstrates a structured experimental approach but lacks critical details regarding sample size justification, group allocation clarity, nanoparticle dispersion validation, and specimen standardization, which may affect reproducibility and internal validity. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations, which have significantly strengthened the methodological quality of the study. In response, we have carefully revised the methodology section to address the raised concerns. Specifically, additional details have been provided regarding sample size considerations, clearer description of group allocation, clarification of nanoparticle dispersion procedures, and improved standardization of specimen preparation. Comment : Sample size estimation is not relevant to the current investigation. The authors have nearly two tested materials, then five testing parameters, each divided into two subgroups; ten specimens for each subgroup may not be adequate for generalization. Alternatively, the authors should mention similar studies regarding the number of groups and subgroups used for calculating their sample size. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding sample size estimation. In this study, the sample size was determined using data from a closely related published investigation that evaluated the fracture resistance of 3D‑printed denture teeth fabricated from the same resin system but without nanoparticle reinforcement. Because fracture resistance was also the primary outcome in our work, the mean and standard deviation reported in that study provided the most appropriate and directly comparable estimates of variability for calculating the minimum required sample size. Although the referenced study did not include nanoparticle‑modified groups, it examined the same material category, printing technology, and mechanical test, making it the closest available model for estimating variability in fracture resistance. This approach is commonly used in in‑vitro dental materials research when identical datasets are not available. The sample size calculation section has been revised and expanded to improve clarity and accuracy. Comment 1- Although 220 specimens were reported, the distribution of samples among subgroups (control vs. nanoparticle groups, thermocycled vs. non-thermocycled) is not clearly described, making the experimental design difficult to follow. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The distribution of specimens among the different subgroups has now been clearly clarified in the revised manuscript. Detailed descriptions of the grouping have been added to the methods sections. In addition, the study design figure and flowchart have been revised to visually illustrate the sample allocation and experimental workflow more clearly. Comment 2- Lack of randomization description: The method does not state whether specimens were randomly assigned to groups, which raises concerns about selection bias. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In the present study, specimen grouping was not based on random allocation but was predetermined according to nanoparticle type and concentration for each 3D-printed resin. Therefore, randomization was not applicable, as each group represented a specific experimental condition defined by the study design. All specimens were fabricated under standardized conditions to minimize variability and reduce potential bias. Comment 3- No control for nanoparticle dispersion quality: The method states mixing for 30 minutes but does not include verification techniques such as ultrasonication, SEM, or particle distribution analysis (more details regarding the silanization process and the mixing technique employed are needed). Response : Thank you for your comment. Regarding mixing procedures, we followed the previous studies adding NP to 3D printed resins. More details about adding NPs to fluid resins were added and supported with references. In addition to the details of silanization process. Please, see highlighted changes in the methodology. Comment 4- Critical parameters such as temperature range, dwell time, transfer time, and the number of cycles equivalent to clinical aging should be mentioned in this section. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. all details about TC protocols added and supported with references Comment 5- The rationale for dividing specimens into thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups is implied. However, considering that all artificial teeth intraorally will be subjected to oral cavity changes, please clarify why some specimens were not thermally aged. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The inclusion of both thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups was intentional to allow a baseline evaluation of the material properties prior to aging and to enable direct comparison with post-aging performance. The non-thermally aged specimens represent the initial mechanical behavior of the materials immediately after fabrication, while the thermally aged groups simulate the effects of intraoral temperature fluctuations over time. This approach is widely used in in vitro studies to assess the extent to which aging influences material degradation. By comparing both conditions, it becomes possible to determine not only the absolute performance of each group but also the magnitude of change induced by thermal cycling. This is particularly important in the present study to evaluate whether nanoparticle incorporation improves not only the initial mechanical properties but also their stability after simulated oral aging. Accordingly, this design provides a more comprehensive understanding of material performance and durability under both baseline and simulated clinical conditions. More discussion about this point is added. Results: Comment: The Results section presents extensive and useful data but suffers from limited integration of mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, which reduces clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. We would like to clarify that the microscopic (SEM) and spectroscopic (FTIR) assessments in this study were conducted as qualitative, supportive analyses rather than quantitative outcome measures. Accordingly, these findings were presented descriptively in the Results section to complement and contextualize the mechanical data, rather than to provide statistical integration across methods. The interaction between mechanical performance, microstructural features, and chemical characterization was addressed in the Discussion section, where the relationships among these findings were synthesized and interpreted. Discussion: The discussion mostly reports agreement with previous studies but does not critically analyze differences and rarely discusses methodological variations. Comment 1- Several mechanisms such as water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging effects are repeatedly described, resulting in an overly lengthy discussion that could be streamlined for clarity and focus. Response : Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the discussion section contained repeated descriptions of water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging mechanisms. In response, we have revised the section to streamline the narrative, remove redundancies, and present these mechanisms more concisely. The revised Discussion now focuses on synthesizing how these degradation processes relate to the mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, improving clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Comment 2- Insufficient consideration of confounding variables: Potential influences such as post-curing conditions, printing parameters, and degree of conversion are acknowledged but not fully controlled or quantitatively assessed, which may affect the interpretation of mechanical property changes. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding potential confounding variables. In this study, factors such as post‑curing conditions and degree of conversion were addressed in the highlighted section in discussion, as the curing units used for the two resins differ in their manufacturer‑specified protocols. In contrast, parameters including layer thickness and printing orientation were fully standardized for both materials and therefore did not vary across groups. Because these conditions were controlled rather than treated as experimental variables, they were not considered confounding factors that could obscure the interpretation of the mechanical outcomes. Comment: Why were prefabricated teeth used in the current study without even mentioning how they were fabricated or which manufacturing technique was used, especially since the reported values of prefabricated teeth are much higher than those of the two 3D-printed resin teeth groups? Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. Prefabricated teeth were included in the present study as a reference group because they represent the most used materials in conventional denture fabrication and are considered a clinical benchmark for comparison. The primary objective was to compare the mechanical performance of 3D-printed denture teeth with materials currently used in routine clinical practice. Regarding their fabrication, prefabricated denture teeth are industrially manufactured under controlled conditions using highly cross-linked acrylic resins and optimized polymerization processes, which typically result in superior mechanical properties. This may explain the higher values observed compared to the 3D-printed groups. The manuscript has been revised to clarify the type and commercial source of the prefabricated teeth and to acknowledge their manufacturing characteristics as a factor influencing the results. Competing Interests: none Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ibrahim YM. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r473238 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v3#referee-response-473238 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 08 Apr 2026 Yomna M. Ibrahim , Alexandria University, Alexandria, Alexandria Governorate, Egypt Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r473238 The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types of ceramic nanoparticles. While the study shows potential and the general ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types of ceramic nanoparticles. While the study shows potential and the general concept is of scientific interest, there are several major methodological and reporting concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed before the work can be considered for indexing. Major points: A) Abstract 1. In the background section, an introductory sentence that defines the problem should be added before the aim. 2. The study groups are missing the prefabricated teeth group (n=20). This group is mentioned later in figure 1, but it should be mentioned in the abstract. B) Introduction The introduction is properly arranged with suitable references from the literature. C) Methods 1. The details of the silanization process should be mentioned along with the type and concentration of silane used. 2. The homogeneity of the mixture is doubtful as 30 minutes is not considered an enough time for dispersion of the particles. Also, the rpm of stirring is not mentioned along with the brand name of the magnetic stirrer. It is also recommended to use an ultrasonic bath to help disperse the particles which was not used in this study. 3. Please provide evidence that supports your choice of support removal to be after post-curing and not before. What did the manufacturers recommend concerning support removal? 4. A major flaw in this study is the calculation of elastic modulus using values obtained from fracture resistance and using an equation that calculates flexural modulus of bar shaped specimens. Please remove any mention of the elastic modulus calculations from all sections of the manuscript. 5. Please check the consistency of reporting the post-curing parameters as what is written in the methods section conflicts with that reported in figure 1. 6. The SEM magnification is mentioned as x2000 which is contradictory to the SEM figure legends mentioned later. Therefore, please omit the magnification and scale bar details mentioned in the text. Also, the SEM and TEM micrographs of the particles should be provided in the manuscript. 7. The FTIR data could have been used not only to report the bonds, but also to calculate the degree of conversion which would be a valuable addition to your study. D) Results The ND group was always reported first in all tests except the FTIR and SEM. Please ensure consistent reporting of the groups in all figures where ND is mentioned first followed by AS. E) Discussion On page 15, the last paragraph suggests different uses for the reinforced denture teeth which are not supported by evidence from this study. Using reinforced resin against natural teeth or implant supported restorations should be evaluated in terms of wear and abrasion resistance in order to draw such conclusions. Minor points: 1. A revision of the English language is required. 2. On page 5, the third paragraph of the methods section, the STL file preparation and printing procedure should be rewritten. 3. In figure 1, the label states "interim crown", while it should be "denture tooth". 4. In figure 2, the unit for fracture resistance should be (N) not (MPa) Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Dental Biomaterials, 3D printing, Nanotechnology, Materials testing I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ibrahim YM. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r473238 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v3#referee-response-473238 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 May 2026 Mohammed Gad , Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 14 May 2026 Author Response The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types ... Continue reading The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types of ceramic nanoparticles. While the study shows potential and the general concept is of scientific interest, there are several major methodological and reporting concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed before the work can be considered for indexing. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Major points: A) Abstract Comment 1. In the background section, an introductory sentence that defines the problem should be added before the aim. Response : Thank you for your comment. The research problem was added to background before the aim of study. Comment 2. The study groups are missing the prefabricated teeth group (n=20). This group is mentioned later in figure 1, but it should be mentioned in the abstract. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Group allocation and distribution was revised in the abstract and methodology. B) Introduction The introduction is properly arranged with suitable references from the literature. Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. C) Methods Comment 1. The details of the silanization process should be mentioned along with the type and concentration of silane used. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have now added full details regarding the type of silane, its concentration, and the application protocol used in our study. Specifically, we have clarified the brand and chemical composition of the silane coupling agent, the concentration supplied by the manufacturer, the surface preparation steps prior to silane application. These details have been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the procedure. Comment 2. The homogeneity of the mixture is doubtful as 30 minutes is not considered enough time for dispersion of the particles. Also, the rpm of stirring is not mentioned along with the brand name of the magnetic stirrer. It is also recommended to use an ultrasonic bath to help disperse the particles which were not used in this study. Response : Thank you for your comment. We have revised the mixing protocol and more details added with cited references. Unfortunately, we don’t perform Ultrasonication we immediately again do shake for 1 hour before printing. But after reviewing the comments we found some articles recommended Ultrasonication and we added to study limitation and further recommendation. Please, see updated study limitations and further investigations Comment 3. Please provide evidence that supports your choice of support removal to be after post-curing and not before. What did the manufacturers recommend concerning support removal? Response : Thank you for this important comment. The timing of support removal remains controversial, with some studies suggesting removal before post-curing and others after. However, in the pre-cured “green state,” the resin is not fully polymerized. Therefore, manufacturers commonly recommend post-curing prior to support removal to ensure optimal mechanical properties and dimensional stability, as early removal may result in deformation and surface defects. Based on these recommendations, we followed the post‑curing‑first protocol to ensure dimensional accuracy, minimize surface defects, and maintain the mechanical integrity of the printed specimens. We have now clarified this rationale in the methodology as well as the details of post-curing steps sequence and conditions. Comment 4. A major flaw in this study is the calculation of elastic modulus using values obtained from fracture resistance and using an equation that calculates flexural modulus of bar shaped specimens. Please remove any mention of the elastic modulus calculations from all sections of the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendations. We totally agree with you regarding EM calculations. We followed previous study investigated elastic modulus for 3-unit bridge instead of bar and we cited this reference to support our method. The calculation method was added based on reviewer comment and suggestion in Version 2. After reviewing, all related statements related to elastic calculation were deleted and one reference supported this measurement method was cited. Also, our research team suggested deleting elastic modulus to overcome the methodology flaw and we are waiting for your suggestion regarding this point. Comment 5. Please check the consistency of reporting the post-curing parameters as what is written in the methods section conflicts with that reported in figure 1. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment 6. The SEM magnification is mentioned as x2000 which is contradictory to the SEM figure legends mentioned later. Therefore, please omit the magnification and scale bar details mentioned in the text. Also, the SEM and TEM micrographs of the particles should be provided in the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The discrepancy between the SEM magnification reported in the text and that presented in the figure legends has been carefully reviewed. Also, the magnification and scale bar details are deleted from the text. Comment 7. The FTIR data could have been used not only to report the bonds, but also to calculate the degree of conversion which would be a valuable addition to your study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In this study, only a subset of specimens was randomly selected for FTIR analysis; therefore, the degree of conversion test could not be conducted comprehensively, as not all specimens were evaluated. This limitation has been acknowledged and included in the recommendations for future investigations. D) Results Comment The ND group was always reported first in all tests except the FTIR and SEM. Please ensure consistent reporting of the groups in all figures where ND is mentioned first followed by AS. Response : Thank you for your observation. We appreciate the need for consistency in the presentation of groups across all figures. All figures have now been revised so that the ND group is consistently reported first, followed by the AS group, in alignment with the order used throughout the text. E) Discussion Comment On page 15, the last paragraph suggests different uses for the reinforced denture teeth which are not supported by evidence from this study. Using reinforced resin against natural teeth or implant supported restorations should be evaluated in terms of wear and abrasion resistance in order to draw such conclusions. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the suggested clinical applications in the last paragraph were not directly supported by the scope of our laboratory tests. The study did not evaluate wear behavior, abrasion resistance, or interactions with natural teeth or implant‑supported restorations. In response, we have revised the paragraph to remove unsupported implications and have limited the conclusions strictly to the laboratory findings. Additional studies assessing wear, antagonist contact, and long‑term functional stresses will be necessary before proposing such clinical uses. Minor points: Comment 1. A revision of the English language is required. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. Comment 2. On page 5, the third paragraph of the methods section, the STL file preparation and printing procedure should be rewritten. Response : Thank you for your comment. The STL file preparation and printing procedure in the third paragraph of the Methods section has been fully rewritten for clarity and improved methodological transparency. The revised text now provides a clearer description of the design workflow, STL export, slicing parameters, and printing steps to ensure consistency and reproducibility. Comment 3. In figure 1, the label states "interim crown", while it should be "denture tooth". Respons e: thank you for your careful review. Figure 1 has been completely revised. Comment 4. In figure 2, the unit for fracture resistance should be (N) not (MPa) Response : Thank you for your careful review. The figure was modified. The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types of ceramic nanoparticles. While the study shows potential and the general concept is of scientific interest, there are several major methodological and reporting concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed before the work can be considered for indexing. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Major points: A) Abstract Comment 1. In the background section, an introductory sentence that defines the problem should be added before the aim. Response : Thank you for your comment. The research problem was added to background before the aim of study. Comment 2. The study groups are missing the prefabricated teeth group (n=20). This group is mentioned later in figure 1, but it should be mentioned in the abstract. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Group allocation and distribution was revised in the abstract and methodology. B) Introduction The introduction is properly arranged with suitable references from the literature. Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. C) Methods Comment 1. The details of the silanization process should be mentioned along with the type and concentration of silane used. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have now added full details regarding the type of silane, its concentration, and the application protocol used in our study. Specifically, we have clarified the brand and chemical composition of the silane coupling agent, the concentration supplied by the manufacturer, the surface preparation steps prior to silane application. These details have been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the procedure. Comment 2. The homogeneity of the mixture is doubtful as 30 minutes is not considered enough time for dispersion of the particles. Also, the rpm of stirring is not mentioned along with the brand name of the magnetic stirrer. It is also recommended to use an ultrasonic bath to help disperse the particles which were not used in this study. Response : Thank you for your comment. We have revised the mixing protocol and more details added with cited references. Unfortunately, we don’t perform Ultrasonication we immediately again do shake for 1 hour before printing. But after reviewing the comments we found some articles recommended Ultrasonication and we added to study limitation and further recommendation. Please, see updated study limitations and further investigations Comment 3. Please provide evidence that supports your choice of support removal to be after post-curing and not before. What did the manufacturers recommend concerning support removal? Response : Thank you for this important comment. The timing of support removal remains controversial, with some studies suggesting removal before post-curing and others after. However, in the pre-cured “green state,” the resin is not fully polymerized. Therefore, manufacturers commonly recommend post-curing prior to support removal to ensure optimal mechanical properties and dimensional stability, as early removal may result in deformation and surface defects. Based on these recommendations, we followed the post‑curing‑first protocol to ensure dimensional accuracy, minimize surface defects, and maintain the mechanical integrity of the printed specimens. We have now clarified this rationale in the methodology as well as the details of post-curing steps sequence and conditions. Comment 4. A major flaw in this study is the calculation of elastic modulus using values obtained from fracture resistance and using an equation that calculates flexural modulus of bar shaped specimens. Please remove any mention of the elastic modulus calculations from all sections of the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendations. We totally agree with you regarding EM calculations. We followed previous study investigated elastic modulus for 3-unit bridge instead of bar and we cited this reference to support our method. The calculation method was added based on reviewer comment and suggestion in Version 2. After reviewing, all related statements related to elastic calculation were deleted and one reference supported this measurement method was cited. Also, our research team suggested deleting elastic modulus to overcome the methodology flaw and we are waiting for your suggestion regarding this point. Comment 5. Please check the consistency of reporting the post-curing parameters as what is written in the methods section conflicts with that reported in figure 1. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment 6. The SEM magnification is mentioned as x2000 which is contradictory to the SEM figure legends mentioned later. Therefore, please omit the magnification and scale bar details mentioned in the text. Also, the SEM and TEM micrographs of the particles should be provided in the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The discrepancy between the SEM magnification reported in the text and that presented in the figure legends has been carefully reviewed. Also, the magnification and scale bar details are deleted from the text. Comment 7. The FTIR data could have been used not only to report the bonds, but also to calculate the degree of conversion which would be a valuable addition to your study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In this study, only a subset of specimens was randomly selected for FTIR analysis; therefore, the degree of conversion test could not be conducted comprehensively, as not all specimens were evaluated. This limitation has been acknowledged and included in the recommendations for future investigations. D) Results Comment The ND group was always reported first in all tests except the FTIR and SEM. Please ensure consistent reporting of the groups in all figures where ND is mentioned first followed by AS. Response : Thank you for your observation. We appreciate the need for consistency in the presentation of groups across all figures. All figures have now been revised so that the ND group is consistently reported first, followed by the AS group, in alignment with the order used throughout the text. E) Discussion Comment On page 15, the last paragraph suggests different uses for the reinforced denture teeth which are not supported by evidence from this study. Using reinforced resin against natural teeth or implant supported restorations should be evaluated in terms of wear and abrasion resistance in order to draw such conclusions. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the suggested clinical applications in the last paragraph were not directly supported by the scope of our laboratory tests. The study did not evaluate wear behavior, abrasion resistance, or interactions with natural teeth or implant‑supported restorations. In response, we have revised the paragraph to remove unsupported implications and have limited the conclusions strictly to the laboratory findings. Additional studies assessing wear, antagonist contact, and long‑term functional stresses will be necessary before proposing such clinical uses. Minor points: Comment 1. A revision of the English language is required. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. Comment 2. On page 5, the third paragraph of the methods section, the STL file preparation and printing procedure should be rewritten. Response : Thank you for your comment. The STL file preparation and printing procedure in the third paragraph of the Methods section has been fully rewritten for clarity and improved methodological transparency. The revised text now provides a clearer description of the design workflow, STL export, slicing parameters, and printing steps to ensure consistency and reproducibility. Comment 3. In figure 1, the label states "interim crown", while it should be "denture tooth". Respons e: thank you for your careful review. Figure 1 has been completely revised. Comment 4. In figure 2, the unit for fracture resistance should be (N) not (MPa) Response : Thank you for your careful review. The figure was modified. Competing Interests: Non-Financial Competing Interests' Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 May 2026 Mohammed Gad , Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 14 May 2026 Author Response The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types ... Continue reading The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types of ceramic nanoparticles. While the study shows potential and the general concept is of scientific interest, there are several major methodological and reporting concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed before the work can be considered for indexing. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Major points: A) Abstract Comment 1. In the background section, an introductory sentence that defines the problem should be added before the aim. Response : Thank you for your comment. The research problem was added to background before the aim of study. Comment 2. The study groups are missing the prefabricated teeth group (n=20). This group is mentioned later in figure 1, but it should be mentioned in the abstract. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Group allocation and distribution was revised in the abstract and methodology. B) Introduction The introduction is properly arranged with suitable references from the literature. Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. C) Methods Comment 1. The details of the silanization process should be mentioned along with the type and concentration of silane used. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have now added full details regarding the type of silane, its concentration, and the application protocol used in our study. Specifically, we have clarified the brand and chemical composition of the silane coupling agent, the concentration supplied by the manufacturer, the surface preparation steps prior to silane application. These details have been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the procedure. Comment 2. The homogeneity of the mixture is doubtful as 30 minutes is not considered enough time for dispersion of the particles. Also, the rpm of stirring is not mentioned along with the brand name of the magnetic stirrer. It is also recommended to use an ultrasonic bath to help disperse the particles which were not used in this study. Response : Thank you for your comment. We have revised the mixing protocol and more details added with cited references. Unfortunately, we don’t perform Ultrasonication we immediately again do shake for 1 hour before printing. But after reviewing the comments we found some articles recommended Ultrasonication and we added to study limitation and further recommendation. Please, see updated study limitations and further investigations Comment 3. Please provide evidence that supports your choice of support removal to be after post-curing and not before. What did the manufacturers recommend concerning support removal? Response : Thank you for this important comment. The timing of support removal remains controversial, with some studies suggesting removal before post-curing and others after. However, in the pre-cured “green state,” the resin is not fully polymerized. Therefore, manufacturers commonly recommend post-curing prior to support removal to ensure optimal mechanical properties and dimensional stability, as early removal may result in deformation and surface defects. Based on these recommendations, we followed the post‑curing‑first protocol to ensure dimensional accuracy, minimize surface defects, and maintain the mechanical integrity of the printed specimens. We have now clarified this rationale in the methodology as well as the details of post-curing steps sequence and conditions. Comment 4. A major flaw in this study is the calculation of elastic modulus using values obtained from fracture resistance and using an equation that calculates flexural modulus of bar shaped specimens. Please remove any mention of the elastic modulus calculations from all sections of the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendations. We totally agree with you regarding EM calculations. We followed previous study investigated elastic modulus for 3-unit bridge instead of bar and we cited this reference to support our method. The calculation method was added based on reviewer comment and suggestion in Version 2. After reviewing, all related statements related to elastic calculation were deleted and one reference supported this measurement method was cited. Also, our research team suggested deleting elastic modulus to overcome the methodology flaw and we are waiting for your suggestion regarding this point. Comment 5. Please check the consistency of reporting the post-curing parameters as what is written in the methods section conflicts with that reported in figure 1. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment 6. The SEM magnification is mentioned as x2000 which is contradictory to the SEM figure legends mentioned later. Therefore, please omit the magnification and scale bar details mentioned in the text. Also, the SEM and TEM micrographs of the particles should be provided in the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The discrepancy between the SEM magnification reported in the text and that presented in the figure legends has been carefully reviewed. Also, the magnification and scale bar details are deleted from the text. Comment 7. The FTIR data could have been used not only to report the bonds, but also to calculate the degree of conversion which would be a valuable addition to your study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In this study, only a subset of specimens was randomly selected for FTIR analysis; therefore, the degree of conversion test could not be conducted comprehensively, as not all specimens were evaluated. This limitation has been acknowledged and included in the recommendations for future investigations. D) Results Comment The ND group was always reported first in all tests except the FTIR and SEM. Please ensure consistent reporting of the groups in all figures where ND is mentioned first followed by AS. Response : Thank you for your observation. We appreciate the need for consistency in the presentation of groups across all figures. All figures have now been revised so that the ND group is consistently reported first, followed by the AS group, in alignment with the order used throughout the text. E) Discussion Comment On page 15, the last paragraph suggests different uses for the reinforced denture teeth which are not supported by evidence from this study. Using reinforced resin against natural teeth or implant supported restorations should be evaluated in terms of wear and abrasion resistance in order to draw such conclusions. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the suggested clinical applications in the last paragraph were not directly supported by the scope of our laboratory tests. The study did not evaluate wear behavior, abrasion resistance, or interactions with natural teeth or implant‑supported restorations. In response, we have revised the paragraph to remove unsupported implications and have limited the conclusions strictly to the laboratory findings. Additional studies assessing wear, antagonist contact, and long‑term functional stresses will be necessary before proposing such clinical uses. Minor points: Comment 1. A revision of the English language is required. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. Comment 2. On page 5, the third paragraph of the methods section, the STL file preparation and printing procedure should be rewritten. Response : Thank you for your comment. The STL file preparation and printing procedure in the third paragraph of the Methods section has been fully rewritten for clarity and improved methodological transparency. The revised text now provides a clearer description of the design workflow, STL export, slicing parameters, and printing steps to ensure consistency and reproducibility. Comment 3. In figure 1, the label states "interim crown", while it should be "denture tooth". Respons e: thank you for your careful review. Figure 1 has been completely revised. Comment 4. In figure 2, the unit for fracture resistance should be (N) not (MPa) Response : Thank you for your careful review. The figure was modified. The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types of ceramic nanoparticles. While the study shows potential and the general concept is of scientific interest, there are several major methodological and reporting concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed before the work can be considered for indexing. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Major points: A) Abstract Comment 1. In the background section, an introductory sentence that defines the problem should be added before the aim. Response : Thank you for your comment. The research problem was added to background before the aim of study. Comment 2. The study groups are missing the prefabricated teeth group (n=20). This group is mentioned later in figure 1, but it should be mentioned in the abstract. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Group allocation and distribution was revised in the abstract and methodology. B) Introduction The introduction is properly arranged with suitable references from the literature. Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. C) Methods Comment 1. The details of the silanization process should be mentioned along with the type and concentration of silane used. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have now added full details regarding the type of silane, its concentration, and the application protocol used in our study. Specifically, we have clarified the brand and chemical composition of the silane coupling agent, the concentration supplied by the manufacturer, the surface preparation steps prior to silane application. These details have been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the procedure. Comment 2. The homogeneity of the mixture is doubtful as 30 minutes is not considered enough time for dispersion of the particles. Also, the rpm of stirring is not mentioned along with the brand name of the magnetic stirrer. It is also recommended to use an ultrasonic bath to help disperse the particles which were not used in this study. Response : Thank you for your comment. We have revised the mixing protocol and more details added with cited references. Unfortunately, we don’t perform Ultrasonication we immediately again do shake for 1 hour before printing. But after reviewing the comments we found some articles recommended Ultrasonication and we added to study limitation and further recommendation. Please, see updated study limitations and further investigations Comment 3. Please provide evidence that supports your choice of support removal to be after post-curing and not before. What did the manufacturers recommend concerning support removal? Response : Thank you for this important comment. The timing of support removal remains controversial, with some studies suggesting removal before post-curing and others after. However, in the pre-cured “green state,” the resin is not fully polymerized. Therefore, manufacturers commonly recommend post-curing prior to support removal to ensure optimal mechanical properties and dimensional stability, as early removal may result in deformation and surface defects. Based on these recommendations, we followed the post‑curing‑first protocol to ensure dimensional accuracy, minimize surface defects, and maintain the mechanical integrity of the printed specimens. We have now clarified this rationale in the methodology as well as the details of post-curing steps sequence and conditions. Comment 4. A major flaw in this study is the calculation of elastic modulus using values obtained from fracture resistance and using an equation that calculates flexural modulus of bar shaped specimens. Please remove any mention of the elastic modulus calculations from all sections of the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendations. We totally agree with you regarding EM calculations. We followed previous study investigated elastic modulus for 3-unit bridge instead of bar and we cited this reference to support our method. The calculation method was added based on reviewer comment and suggestion in Version 2. After reviewing, all related statements related to elastic calculation were deleted and one reference supported this measurement method was cited. Also, our research team suggested deleting elastic modulus to overcome the methodology flaw and we are waiting for your suggestion regarding this point. Comment 5. Please check the consistency of reporting the post-curing parameters as what is written in the methods section conflicts with that reported in figure 1. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment 6. The SEM magnification is mentioned as x2000 which is contradictory to the SEM figure legends mentioned later. Therefore, please omit the magnification and scale bar details mentioned in the text. Also, the SEM and TEM micrographs of the particles should be provided in the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The discrepancy between the SEM magnification reported in the text and that presented in the figure legends has been carefully reviewed. Also, the magnification and scale bar details are deleted from the text. Comment 7. The FTIR data could have been used not only to report the bonds, but also to calculate the degree of conversion which would be a valuable addition to your study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In this study, only a subset of specimens was randomly selected for FTIR analysis; therefore, the degree of conversion test could not be conducted comprehensively, as not all specimens were evaluated. This limitation has been acknowledged and included in the recommendations for future investigations. D) Results Comment The ND group was always reported first in all tests except the FTIR and SEM. Please ensure consistent reporting of the groups in all figures where ND is mentioned first followed by AS. Response : Thank you for your observation. We appreciate the need for consistency in the presentation of groups across all figures. All figures have now been revised so that the ND group is consistently reported first, followed by the AS group, in alignment with the order used throughout the text. E) Discussion Comment On page 15, the last paragraph suggests different uses for the reinforced denture teeth which are not supported by evidence from this study. Using reinforced resin against natural teeth or implant supported restorations should be evaluated in terms of wear and abrasion resistance in order to draw such conclusions. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the suggested clinical applications in the last paragraph were not directly supported by the scope of our laboratory tests. The study did not evaluate wear behavior, abrasion resistance, or interactions with natural teeth or implant‑supported restorations. In response, we have revised the paragraph to remove unsupported implications and have limited the conclusions strictly to the laboratory findings. Additional studies assessing wear, antagonist contact, and long‑term functional stresses will be necessary before proposing such clinical uses. Minor points: Comment 1. A revision of the English language is required. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. Comment 2. On page 5, the third paragraph of the methods section, the STL file preparation and printing procedure should be rewritten. Response : Thank you for your comment. The STL file preparation and printing procedure in the third paragraph of the Methods section has been fully rewritten for clarity and improved methodological transparency. The revised text now provides a clearer description of the design workflow, STL export, slicing parameters, and printing steps to ensure consistency and reproducibility. Comment 3. In figure 1, the label states "interim crown", while it should be "denture tooth". Respons e: thank you for your careful review. Figure 1 has been completely revised. Comment 4. In figure 2, the unit for fracture resistance should be (N) not (MPa) Response : Thank you for your careful review. The figure was modified. Competing Interests: Non-Financial Competing Interests' Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Uzunoglu Ozyurek E. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r470324 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v3#referee-response-470324 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Apr 2026 Emel Uzunoglu Ozyurek , Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r470324 Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission.This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth fabrication. The subject is potentially of interest. However, after carefully ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission.This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth fabrication. The subject is potentially of interest. However, after carefully reviewing the manuscript, I do not consider it suitable for indexing in its current form. My concerns are not limited to presentation or language issues; they involve methodological clarity, analytical consistency, and interpretation of the findings. My first major concern is the lack of clarity in specimen allocation. The manuscript states that a total of 220 specimens were fabricated, including 20 prefabricated teeth, 100 ASIGA specimens, and 100 NextDent specimens, and that half of the prepared specimens (N=110) were thermocycled while the other half were not. At the same time, the manuscript describes five groups for each resin type with n=20 per group, which accounts for 100 specimens per printed resin. However, the exact subgroup distribution remains unclear, particularly regarding how the prefabricated group was allocated within the thermal aging scheme and comparison structure. In addition, the manuscript does not clearly report how many specimens were used for each outcome. It is left to the reader to infer that fracture resistance and elastic modulus were derived from the same loading procedure, but this should be stated explicitly and unambiguously. A second major concern is the statistical workflow, which is difficult to follow and appears internally inconsistent. In the Methods, the authors state that a two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the effect of thermal aging on fracture resistance, that one-way ANOVA was used to explore the effects of nanoparticle concentration, and that three-way ANOVA was used to examine interaction effects. However, thermal aging is already one of the main study factors and is also presented within the three-way ANOVA framework in the Results. As written, it is unclear which model represents the primary inferential analysis and why an additional t-test was required for an effect that should already be addressed within a multifactorial design. This lack of analytical clarity weakens confidence in the reported findings. Another important methodological concern relates to the calculation of elastic modulus. According to the Methods, elastic modulus was derived from the load-deflection curve using a formula that appears to be based on beam-type assumptions. However, the tested specimens were anatomically shaped denture teeth loaded on the occlusal surface, not standardized bar-shaped specimens typically used for modulus determination. Under such conditions, the validity and interpretation of the calculated elastic modulus are questionable. Since this is presented as one of the main outcomes, this issue directly affects the reliability of an important part of the study. The manuscript also contains unresolved inconsistencies in data presentation. One of the previous reviewers had already raised concern regarding the inconsistent reporting of fracture resistance/load units in N versus MPa. Although the authors responded to this point, the revised abstract still includes an apparent fracture resistance value reported in MPa instead of N. This indicates that the revision was not fully implemented and raises concern regarding the accuracy of the final reported data. There is also inconsistency between the description of the protocol and the graphical presentation. Figure 1 presents a generalized post-curing scheme, whereas the Methods describe different post-curing procedures for the two printing systems. This discrepancy should be corrected because it creates uncertainty about the actual protocol followed. With respect to interpretation, the study is appropriately framed around denture tooth fabrication rather than natural tooth behavior. However, the conclusions still seem broader than the design can support. A single-load fracture test combined with relatively short-term thermal aging may provide useful preliminary laboratory data, but it does not reproduce the full clinical service conditions of denture teeth, including fatigue loading, wear, water sorption, antagonist contact, and prosthesis-level functional stresses. Therefore, the conclusions should remain more cautious and restricted to laboratory material performance. In addition, the role of SEM and FTIR analyses is not sufficiently integrated into the overall argument. Although these methods are included, the manuscript does not clearly explain how many specimens were analyzed, whether the evaluation was qualitative or quantitative, or how these findings mechanistically support the reported mechanical outcomes. At present, these analyses appear supplementary rather than essential to the interpretation of the results. Finally, the manuscript still requires substantial language editing. Several sentences remain awkward, unclear, or grammatically problematic, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. These issues further reduce readability and make the analytical logic more difficult to follow. Overall, although the topic is potentially relevant, I am unable to support indexing of the manuscript in its current form. The concerns involve core aspects of study design, outcome validity, statistical analysis, consistency of revision, and interpretation, rather than minor editorial issues alone. For these reasons, I do not consider the manuscript suitable for indexing in its present version. Best regards Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Endodontics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Uzunoglu Ozyurek E. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r470324 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v3#referee-response-470324 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 14 May 2026 Mohammed Gad , Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 14 May 2026 Author Response Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission. This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth ... Continue reading Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission. This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth fabrication. The subject is potentially of interest. However, after carefully reviewing the manuscript, I do not consider it suitable for indexing in its current form. My concerns are not limited to presentation or language issues; they involve methodological clarity, analytical consistency, and interpretation of the findings. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Comment : My first major concern is the lack of clarity in specimen allocation. The manuscript states that a total of 220 specimens were fabricated, including 20 prefabricated teeth, 100 ASIGA specimens, and 100 NextDent specimens, and that half of the prepared specimens (N=110) were thermocycled while the other half were not. At the same time, the manuscript describes five groups for each resin type with n=20 per group, which accounts for 100 specimens per printed resin. However, the exact subgroup distribution remains unclear, particularly regarding how the prefabricated group was allocated within the thermal aging scheme and comparison structure. In addition, the manuscript does not clearly report how many specimens were used for each outcome. It is left to the reader to infer that fracture resistance and elastic modulus were derived from the same loading procedure, but this should be stated explicitly and unambiguously. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The specimen’s distribution and allocation were revised and updated. Please, see highlighted in the abstract. Comment : A second major concern is the statistical workflow, which is difficult to follow and appears internally inconsistent. In the Methods, the authors state that a two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the effect of thermal aging on fracture resistance, that one-way ANOVA was used to explore the effects of nanoparticle concentration, and that three-way ANOVA was used to examine interaction effects. However, thermal aging is already one of the main study factors and is also presented within the three-way ANOVA framework in the Results. As written, it is unclear which model represents the primary inferential analysis and why an additional t-test was required for an effect that should already be addressed within a multifactorial design. This lack of analytical clarity weakens confidence in the reported findings. Response : Thank you for your comment. Reason of using t-test and one-way ANOVA along with three-way ANOVA is to study the effect of single factor while keeping the other factors fixed or constant Comment : Another important methodological concern relates to the calculation of elastic modulus. According to the Methods, elastic modulus was derived from the load-deflection curve using a formula that appears to be based on beam-type assumptions. However, the tested specimens were anatomically shaped denture teeth loaded on the occlusal surface, not standardized bar-shaped specimens typically used for modulus determination. Under such conditions, the validity and interpretation of the calculated elastic modulus are questionable. Since this is presented as one of the main outcomes, this issue directly affects the reliability of an important part of the study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. We totally agree with you regarding the elastic modulus for bar-shape specimens. We calculated the specimen surface area and mentioned the dimension in methodology that was used to calculate the elastic modulus that generated during the fracture test. A previous study calculated the elastic modulus for anatomical crown (3-unit-bridge) using same methods we followed. Moreover, this part was modified based on reviewers’ recommendations. The reference was added to the method however this part was clarified at the end of discussion. Comment : The manuscript also contains unresolved inconsistencies in data presentation. One of the previous reviewers had already raised concern regarding the inconsistent reporting of fracture resistance/load units in N versus MPa. Although the authors responded to this point, the revised abstract still includes an apparent fracture resistance value reported in MPa instead of N. This indicates that the revision was not fully implemented and raises concern regarding the accuracy of the final reported data. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The manuscript has been carefully revised, and an error in the abstract regarding the reporting of fracture resistance (in N) has been corrected. In addition, the entire manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed to ensure consistency and accuracy in this regard. Comment : There is also inconsistency between the description of the protocol and the graphical presentation. Figure 1 presents a generalized post-curing scheme, whereas the Methods describe different post-curing procedures for the two printing systems. This discrepancy should be corrected because it creates uncertainty about the actual protocol followed. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment : With respect to interpretation, the study is appropriately framed around denture tooth fabrication rather than natural tooth behavior. However, the conclusions still seem broader than the design can support. A single-load fracture test combined with relatively short-term thermal aging may provide useful preliminary laboratory data, but it does not reproduce the full clinical service conditions of denture teeth, including fatigue loading, wear, water sorption, antagonist contact, and prosthesis-level functional stresses. Therefore, the conclusions should remain more cautious and restricted to laboratory material performance. Response : Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree that the experimental design, which involved a single-load fracture test and short-term thermal aging, reflects laboratory conditions and does not fully replicate the complex intraoral environment. Accordingly, the conclusions have been revised to be more cautious and limited to the interpretation of laboratory-based material performance. In addition, the limitations of the study have been clearly emphasized to acknowledge these factors and to avoid overgeneralization of the findings to clinical scenarios. Comment : In addition, the role of SEM and FTIR analyses is not sufficiently integrated into the overall argument. Although these methods are included, the manuscript does not clearly explain how many specimens were analyzed, whether the evaluation was qualitative or quantitative, or how these findings mechanistically support the reported mechanical outcomes. At present, these analyses appear supplementary rather than essential to the interpretation of the results. Response : Thank you for this insightful comment. SEM and FTIR analyses were included as complementary techniques to provide mechanistic insight into the observed mechanical behavior rather than as primary quantitative assessment methods. In the present study, a limited number of specimens were randomly selected from each group for SEM and FTIR evaluation; therefore, these analyses were conducted on a qualitative basis. SEM observations were used to examine surface morphology, fracture patterns, and nanoparticle dispersion, while FTIR analysis was employed to confirm chemical interactions and assess polymerization characteristics. Accordingly, their role was to support and help interpret the mechanical findings rather than to serve as standalone outcome measures. This clarification has been added to the methodology and discussion sections to better integrate these analyses within the overall study framework. Comment : Finally, the manuscript still requires substantial language editing. Several sentences remain awkward, unclear, or grammatically problematic, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. These issues further reduce readability and make the analytical logic more difficult to follow. Respons e: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission. This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth fabrication. The subject is potentially of interest. However, after carefully reviewing the manuscript, I do not consider it suitable for indexing in its current form. My concerns are not limited to presentation or language issues; they involve methodological clarity, analytical consistency, and interpretation of the findings. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Comment : My first major concern is the lack of clarity in specimen allocation. The manuscript states that a total of 220 specimens were fabricated, including 20 prefabricated teeth, 100 ASIGA specimens, and 100 NextDent specimens, and that half of the prepared specimens (N=110) were thermocycled while the other half were not. At the same time, the manuscript describes five groups for each resin type with n=20 per group, which accounts for 100 specimens per printed resin. However, the exact subgroup distribution remains unclear, particularly regarding how the prefabricated group was allocated within the thermal aging scheme and comparison structure. In addition, the manuscript does not clearly report how many specimens were used for each outcome. It is left to the reader to infer that fracture resistance and elastic modulus were derived from the same loading procedure, but this should be stated explicitly and unambiguously. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The specimen’s distribution and allocation were revised and updated. Please, see highlighted in the abstract. Comment : A second major concern is the statistical workflow, which is difficult to follow and appears internally inconsistent. In the Methods, the authors state that a two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the effect of thermal aging on fracture resistance, that one-way ANOVA was used to explore the effects of nanoparticle concentration, and that three-way ANOVA was used to examine interaction effects. However, thermal aging is already one of the main study factors and is also presented within the three-way ANOVA framework in the Results. As written, it is unclear which model represents the primary inferential analysis and why an additional t-test was required for an effect that should already be addressed within a multifactorial design. This lack of analytical clarity weakens confidence in the reported findings. Response : Thank you for your comment. Reason of using t-test and one-way ANOVA along with three-way ANOVA is to study the effect of single factor while keeping the other factors fixed or constant Comment : Another important methodological concern relates to the calculation of elastic modulus. According to the Methods, elastic modulus was derived from the load-deflection curve using a formula that appears to be based on beam-type assumptions. However, the tested specimens were anatomically shaped denture teeth loaded on the occlusal surface, not standardized bar-shaped specimens typically used for modulus determination. Under such conditions, the validity and interpretation of the calculated elastic modulus are questionable. Since this is presented as one of the main outcomes, this issue directly affects the reliability of an important part of the study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. We totally agree with you regarding the elastic modulus for bar-shape specimens. We calculated the specimen surface area and mentioned the dimension in methodology that was used to calculate the elastic modulus that generated during the fracture test. A previous study calculated the elastic modulus for anatomical crown (3-unit-bridge) using same methods we followed. Moreover, this part was modified based on reviewers’ recommendations. The reference was added to the method however this part was clarified at the end of discussion. Comment : The manuscript also contains unresolved inconsistencies in data presentation. One of the previous reviewers had already raised concern regarding the inconsistent reporting of fracture resistance/load units in N versus MPa. Although the authors responded to this point, the revised abstract still includes an apparent fracture resistance value reported in MPa instead of N. This indicates that the revision was not fully implemented and raises concern regarding the accuracy of the final reported data. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The manuscript has been carefully revised, and an error in the abstract regarding the reporting of fracture resistance (in N) has been corrected. In addition, the entire manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed to ensure consistency and accuracy in this regard. Comment : There is also inconsistency between the description of the protocol and the graphical presentation. Figure 1 presents a generalized post-curing scheme, whereas the Methods describe different post-curing procedures for the two printing systems. This discrepancy should be corrected because it creates uncertainty about the actual protocol followed. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment : With respect to interpretation, the study is appropriately framed around denture tooth fabrication rather than natural tooth behavior. However, the conclusions still seem broader than the design can support. A single-load fracture test combined with relatively short-term thermal aging may provide useful preliminary laboratory data, but it does not reproduce the full clinical service conditions of denture teeth, including fatigue loading, wear, water sorption, antagonist contact, and prosthesis-level functional stresses. Therefore, the conclusions should remain more cautious and restricted to laboratory material performance. Response : Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree that the experimental design, which involved a single-load fracture test and short-term thermal aging, reflects laboratory conditions and does not fully replicate the complex intraoral environment. Accordingly, the conclusions have been revised to be more cautious and limited to the interpretation of laboratory-based material performance. In addition, the limitations of the study have been clearly emphasized to acknowledge these factors and to avoid overgeneralization of the findings to clinical scenarios. Comment : In addition, the role of SEM and FTIR analyses is not sufficiently integrated into the overall argument. Although these methods are included, the manuscript does not clearly explain how many specimens were analyzed, whether the evaluation was qualitative or quantitative, or how these findings mechanistically support the reported mechanical outcomes. At present, these analyses appear supplementary rather than essential to the interpretation of the results. Response : Thank you for this insightful comment. SEM and FTIR analyses were included as complementary techniques to provide mechanistic insight into the observed mechanical behavior rather than as primary quantitative assessment methods. In the present study, a limited number of specimens were randomly selected from each group for SEM and FTIR evaluation; therefore, these analyses were conducted on a qualitative basis. SEM observations were used to examine surface morphology, fracture patterns, and nanoparticle dispersion, while FTIR analysis was employed to confirm chemical interactions and assess polymerization characteristics. Accordingly, their role was to support and help interpret the mechanical findings rather than to serve as standalone outcome measures. This clarification has been added to the methodology and discussion sections to better integrate these analyses within the overall study framework. Comment : Finally, the manuscript still requires substantial language editing. Several sentences remain awkward, unclear, or grammatically problematic, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. These issues further reduce readability and make the analytical logic more difficult to follow. Respons e: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 14 May 2026 Mohammed Gad , Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 14 May 2026 Author Response Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission. This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth ... Continue reading Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission. This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth fabrication. The subject is potentially of interest. However, after carefully reviewing the manuscript, I do not consider it suitable for indexing in its current form. My concerns are not limited to presentation or language issues; they involve methodological clarity, analytical consistency, and interpretation of the findings. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Comment : My first major concern is the lack of clarity in specimen allocation. The manuscript states that a total of 220 specimens were fabricated, including 20 prefabricated teeth, 100 ASIGA specimens, and 100 NextDent specimens, and that half of the prepared specimens (N=110) were thermocycled while the other half were not. At the same time, the manuscript describes five groups for each resin type with n=20 per group, which accounts for 100 specimens per printed resin. However, the exact subgroup distribution remains unclear, particularly regarding how the prefabricated group was allocated within the thermal aging scheme and comparison structure. In addition, the manuscript does not clearly report how many specimens were used for each outcome. It is left to the reader to infer that fracture resistance and elastic modulus were derived from the same loading procedure, but this should be stated explicitly and unambiguously. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The specimen’s distribution and allocation were revised and updated. Please, see highlighted in the abstract. Comment : A second major concern is the statistical workflow, which is difficult to follow and appears internally inconsistent. In the Methods, the authors state that a two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the effect of thermal aging on fracture resistance, that one-way ANOVA was used to explore the effects of nanoparticle concentration, and that three-way ANOVA was used to examine interaction effects. However, thermal aging is already one of the main study factors and is also presented within the three-way ANOVA framework in the Results. As written, it is unclear which model represents the primary inferential analysis and why an additional t-test was required for an effect that should already be addressed within a multifactorial design. This lack of analytical clarity weakens confidence in the reported findings. Response : Thank you for your comment. Reason of using t-test and one-way ANOVA along with three-way ANOVA is to study the effect of single factor while keeping the other factors fixed or constant Comment : Another important methodological concern relates to the calculation of elastic modulus. According to the Methods, elastic modulus was derived from the load-deflection curve using a formula that appears to be based on beam-type assumptions. However, the tested specimens were anatomically shaped denture teeth loaded on the occlusal surface, not standardized bar-shaped specimens typically used for modulus determination. Under such conditions, the validity and interpretation of the calculated elastic modulus are questionable. Since this is presented as one of the main outcomes, this issue directly affects the reliability of an important part of the study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. We totally agree with you regarding the elastic modulus for bar-shape specimens. We calculated the specimen surface area and mentioned the dimension in methodology that was used to calculate the elastic modulus that generated during the fracture test. A previous study calculated the elastic modulus for anatomical crown (3-unit-bridge) using same methods we followed. Moreover, this part was modified based on reviewers’ recommendations. The reference was added to the method however this part was clarified at the end of discussion. Comment : The manuscript also contains unresolved inconsistencies in data presentation. One of the previous reviewers had already raised concern regarding the inconsistent reporting of fracture resistance/load units in N versus MPa. Although the authors responded to this point, the revised abstract still includes an apparent fracture resistance value reported in MPa instead of N. This indicates that the revision was not fully implemented and raises concern regarding the accuracy of the final reported data. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The manuscript has been carefully revised, and an error in the abstract regarding the reporting of fracture resistance (in N) has been corrected. In addition, the entire manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed to ensure consistency and accuracy in this regard. Comment : There is also inconsistency between the description of the protocol and the graphical presentation. Figure 1 presents a generalized post-curing scheme, whereas the Methods describe different post-curing procedures for the two printing systems. This discrepancy should be corrected because it creates uncertainty about the actual protocol followed. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment : With respect to interpretation, the study is appropriately framed around denture tooth fabrication rather than natural tooth behavior. However, the conclusions still seem broader than the design can support. A single-load fracture test combined with relatively short-term thermal aging may provide useful preliminary laboratory data, but it does not reproduce the full clinical service conditions of denture teeth, including fatigue loading, wear, water sorption, antagonist contact, and prosthesis-level functional stresses. Therefore, the conclusions should remain more cautious and restricted to laboratory material performance. Response : Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree that the experimental design, which involved a single-load fracture test and short-term thermal aging, reflects laboratory conditions and does not fully replicate the complex intraoral environment. Accordingly, the conclusions have been revised to be more cautious and limited to the interpretation of laboratory-based material performance. In addition, the limitations of the study have been clearly emphasized to acknowledge these factors and to avoid overgeneralization of the findings to clinical scenarios. Comment : In addition, the role of SEM and FTIR analyses is not sufficiently integrated into the overall argument. Although these methods are included, the manuscript does not clearly explain how many specimens were analyzed, whether the evaluation was qualitative or quantitative, or how these findings mechanistically support the reported mechanical outcomes. At present, these analyses appear supplementary rather than essential to the interpretation of the results. Response : Thank you for this insightful comment. SEM and FTIR analyses were included as complementary techniques to provide mechanistic insight into the observed mechanical behavior rather than as primary quantitative assessment methods. In the present study, a limited number of specimens were randomly selected from each group for SEM and FTIR evaluation; therefore, these analyses were conducted on a qualitative basis. SEM observations were used to examine surface morphology, fracture patterns, and nanoparticle dispersion, while FTIR analysis was employed to confirm chemical interactions and assess polymerization characteristics. Accordingly, their role was to support and help interpret the mechanical findings rather than to serve as standalone outcome measures. This clarification has been added to the methodology and discussion sections to better integrate these analyses within the overall study framework. Comment : Finally, the manuscript still requires substantial language editing. Several sentences remain awkward, unclear, or grammatically problematic, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. These issues further reduce readability and make the analytical logic more difficult to follow. Respons e: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission. This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth fabrication. The subject is potentially of interest. However, after carefully reviewing the manuscript, I do not consider it suitable for indexing in its current form. My concerns are not limited to presentation or language issues; they involve methodological clarity, analytical consistency, and interpretation of the findings. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Comment : My first major concern is the lack of clarity in specimen allocation. The manuscript states that a total of 220 specimens were fabricated, including 20 prefabricated teeth, 100 ASIGA specimens, and 100 NextDent specimens, and that half of the prepared specimens (N=110) were thermocycled while the other half were not. At the same time, the manuscript describes five groups for each resin type with n=20 per group, which accounts for 100 specimens per printed resin. However, the exact subgroup distribution remains unclear, particularly regarding how the prefabricated group was allocated within the thermal aging scheme and comparison structure. In addition, the manuscript does not clearly report how many specimens were used for each outcome. It is left to the reader to infer that fracture resistance and elastic modulus were derived from the same loading procedure, but this should be stated explicitly and unambiguously. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The specimen’s distribution and allocation were revised and updated. Please, see highlighted in the abstract. Comment : A second major concern is the statistical workflow, which is difficult to follow and appears internally inconsistent. In the Methods, the authors state that a two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the effect of thermal aging on fracture resistance, that one-way ANOVA was used to explore the effects of nanoparticle concentration, and that three-way ANOVA was used to examine interaction effects. However, thermal aging is already one of the main study factors and is also presented within the three-way ANOVA framework in the Results. As written, it is unclear which model represents the primary inferential analysis and why an additional t-test was required for an effect that should already be addressed within a multifactorial design. This lack of analytical clarity weakens confidence in the reported findings. Response : Thank you for your comment. Reason of using t-test and one-way ANOVA along with three-way ANOVA is to study the effect of single factor while keeping the other factors fixed or constant Comment : Another important methodological concern relates to the calculation of elastic modulus. According to the Methods, elastic modulus was derived from the load-deflection curve using a formula that appears to be based on beam-type assumptions. However, the tested specimens were anatomically shaped denture teeth loaded on the occlusal surface, not standardized bar-shaped specimens typically used for modulus determination. Under such conditions, the validity and interpretation of the calculated elastic modulus are questionable. Since this is presented as one of the main outcomes, this issue directly affects the reliability of an important part of the study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. We totally agree with you regarding the elastic modulus for bar-shape specimens. We calculated the specimen surface area and mentioned the dimension in methodology that was used to calculate the elastic modulus that generated during the fracture test. A previous study calculated the elastic modulus for anatomical crown (3-unit-bridge) using same methods we followed. Moreover, this part was modified based on reviewers’ recommendations. The reference was added to the method however this part was clarified at the end of discussion. Comment : The manuscript also contains unresolved inconsistencies in data presentation. One of the previous reviewers had already raised concern regarding the inconsistent reporting of fracture resistance/load units in N versus MPa. Although the authors responded to this point, the revised abstract still includes an apparent fracture resistance value reported in MPa instead of N. This indicates that the revision was not fully implemented and raises concern regarding the accuracy of the final reported data. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The manuscript has been carefully revised, and an error in the abstract regarding the reporting of fracture resistance (in N) has been corrected. In addition, the entire manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed to ensure consistency and accuracy in this regard. Comment : There is also inconsistency between the description of the protocol and the graphical presentation. Figure 1 presents a generalized post-curing scheme, whereas the Methods describe different post-curing procedures for the two printing systems. This discrepancy should be corrected because it creates uncertainty about the actual protocol followed. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment : With respect to interpretation, the study is appropriately framed around denture tooth fabrication rather than natural tooth behavior. However, the conclusions still seem broader than the design can support. A single-load fracture test combined with relatively short-term thermal aging may provide useful preliminary laboratory data, but it does not reproduce the full clinical service conditions of denture teeth, including fatigue loading, wear, water sorption, antagonist contact, and prosthesis-level functional stresses. Therefore, the conclusions should remain more cautious and restricted to laboratory material performance. Response : Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree that the experimental design, which involved a single-load fracture test and short-term thermal aging, reflects laboratory conditions and does not fully replicate the complex intraoral environment. Accordingly, the conclusions have been revised to be more cautious and limited to the interpretation of laboratory-based material performance. In addition, the limitations of the study have been clearly emphasized to acknowledge these factors and to avoid overgeneralization of the findings to clinical scenarios. Comment : In addition, the role of SEM and FTIR analyses is not sufficiently integrated into the overall argument. Although these methods are included, the manuscript does not clearly explain how many specimens were analyzed, whether the evaluation was qualitative or quantitative, or how these findings mechanistically support the reported mechanical outcomes. At present, these analyses appear supplementary rather than essential to the interpretation of the results. Response : Thank you for this insightful comment. SEM and FTIR analyses were included as complementary techniques to provide mechanistic insight into the observed mechanical behavior rather than as primary quantitative assessment methods. In the present study, a limited number of specimens were randomly selected from each group for SEM and FTIR evaluation; therefore, these analyses were conducted on a qualitative basis. SEM observations were used to examine surface morphology, fracture patterns, and nanoparticle dispersion, while FTIR analysis was employed to confirm chemical interactions and assess polymerization characteristics. Accordingly, their role was to support and help interpret the mechanical findings rather than to serve as standalone outcome measures. This clarification has been added to the methodology and discussion sections to better integrate these analyses within the overall study framework. Comment : Finally, the manuscript still requires substantial language editing. Several sentences remain awkward, unclear, or grammatically problematic, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. These issues further reduce readability and make the analytical logic more difficult to follow. Respons e: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Feb 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Yalçın E and ALTINTAŞ E. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190325.r462252 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v2#referee-response-462252 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 Mar 2026 Elif Yalçın , Firat University, Elâzığ, Elâzığ, Turkey EYYÜP ALTINTAŞ , Firat University, Elâzığ, Elâzığ, Turkey Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190325.r462252 Referee Report This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two 3D-printed denture tooth resins (NextDent and ASIGA). Mechanical performance was assessed through ... Continue reading READ ALL Referee Report This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two 3D-printed denture tooth resins (NextDent and ASIGA). Mechanical performance was assessed through fracture resistance and elastic modulus testing before and after thermal aging (5000 cycles). SEM and FTIR analyses were additionally conducted to explore fracture behavior and potential chemical interactions within the reinforced systems. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly within the expanding field of additive manufacturing in prosthodontics and nanoparticle reinforcement strategies. The factorial design, relatively large sample size (n = 220), and inclusion of both mechanical and microstructural analyses represent strengths of the study. Previous literature supports the importance of post-processing conditions and nanoparticle dispersion in influencing mechanical performance of photopolymerized dental resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1; Tahayeri et al., 2018 - Ref 2). However, several issues related to clarity of reporting, statistical interpretation, and methodological transparency must be addressed to ensure scientific robustness and reproducibility. A primary concern relates to the inconsistency in reporting fracture resistance units. In some sections, fracture resistance is presented in Newton (N), whereas in others it is reported in MPa. Since the described mechanical protocol involves compressive loading using a universal testing machine, clarification is required as to whether the analyzed parameter represents fracture load (N) or calculated stress (MPa). If stress values were derived, the method of stress calculation—including area assumptions—must be explicitly described. Consistent unit reporting is essential for transparency and scientific validity, and this issue should be resolved. Regarding statistical interpretation, the three-way ANOVA indicates that the interaction between thermal aging and material type is statistically significant, while interactions involving nanoparticle concentration are not consistently significant. Nonetheless, the manuscript emphasizes enhancement associated with nanoparticle incorporation in generalized terms. Interpretation should more closely reflect the statistical outcomes, distinguishing between significant main effects and non-significant interaction effects. The rejection of null hypotheses should be aligned precisely with the statistical evidence. The substantial reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging warrants deeper discussion. While thermal aging is expected to affect mechanical properties, the magnitude of the reported decline is notable. The authors are encouraged to confirm the calculation method for elastic modulus and expand discussion of potential degradation mechanisms. It is well established that post-polymerization conditions significantly influence degree of conversion and mechanical performance in photopolymerized resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1), and the differing post-curing protocols between materials may represent a confounding variable that should be discussed more explicitly. An inconsistency between the narrative discussion and tabulated results should also be corrected. The manuscript indicates that the elastic modulus of prefabricated teeth did not significantly decrease after aging; however, the corresponding table suggests a statistically significant reduction. Alignment between textual interpretation and statistical data is essential. Although many methodological parameters are reported, additional detail would enhance reproducibility. Clear explanation of how elastic modulus was determined, clarification of fracture resistance calculation, and expanded reporting of printing parameters (e.g., exposure settings, curing conditions) would improve transparency. Providing a concise table summarizing subgroup allocation—including aging distribution—would further improve clarity. Finally, while summary statistics are provided, the underlying raw data are not included. Sharing individual specimen values as supplementary material would strengthen transparency and allow independent verification of the statistical analyses, consistent with principles of open scientific reporting. Overall, this study contributes valuable data to the field of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed denture materials. The experimental framework is generally appropriate, and the inclusion of SEM and FTIR analyses adds depth. The identified concerns primarily relate to clarity, statistical alignment, and methodological reporting rather than fundamental flaws in study design. In conclusion, the manuscript is potentially suitable for indexing following revision. Clarification of unit consistency improved statistical interpretation, correction of textual inconsistencies, and enhanced methodological transparency are required to ensure that the work is scientifically sound and fully reproducible. Recommendation: Approved with Reservations. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Revilla‐León M, Özcan M: Additive Manufacturing Technologies Used for Processing Polymers: Current Status and Potential Application in Prosthetic Dentistry. Journal of Prosthodontics . 2019; 28 (2): 146-158 Publisher Full Text 2. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin A, Bompolaki D, et al.: 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dental Materials . 2018; 34 (2): 192-200 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Prosthodontics; Digital Dentistry; Dental Biomaterials We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Yalçın E and ALTINTAŞ E. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190325.r462252 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v2#referee-response-462252 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Mohammed Gad , Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 23 Mar 2026 Author Response Response to reviewer 2 This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two ... Continue reading Response to reviewer 2 This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two 3D-printed denture tooth resins (NextDent and ASIGA). Mechanical performance was assessed through fracture resistance and elastic modulus testing before and after thermal aging (5000 cycles). SEM and FTIR analyses were additionally conducted to explore fracture behavior and potential chemical interactions within the reinforced systems. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly within the expanding field of additive manufacturing in prosthodontics and nanoparticle reinforcement strategies. The factorial design, relatively large sample size (n = 220), and inclusion of both mechanical and microstructural analyses represent strengths of the study. Previous literature supports the importance of post-processing conditions and nanoparticle dispersion in influencing mechanical performance of photopolymerized dental resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1; Tahayeri et al., 2018 - Ref 2). However, several issues related to clarity of reporting, statistical interpretation, and methodological transparency must be addressed to ensure scientific robustness and reproducibility. Response: Thank you for this constructive and encouraging comment. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the relevance of the topic and the strengths of the study design. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of reporting, statistical presentation, and methodological transparency. The statistical analysis and presentation of results have also been rechecked and clarified, and the tables have been revised to ensure consistent reporting and interpretation of statistical groupings. These revisions were implemented to enhance the scientific rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of the study. Comment: A primary concern relates to the inconsistency in reporting fracture resistance units. In some sections, fracture resistance is presented in Newton (N), whereas in others it is reported in MPa. Since the described mechanical protocol involves compressive loading using a universal testing machine, clarification is required as to whether the analyzed parameter represents fracture load (N) or calculated stress (MPa). If stress values were derived, the method of stress calculation—including area assumptions—must be explicitly described. Consistent unit reporting is essential for transparency and scientific validity, and this issue should be resolved. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that consistent reporting of mechanical test outcomes is essential for clarity and scientific transparency. In the present study, the parameter evaluated was fracture load, which was recorded directly from the universal testing machine (Instron) as the maximum load at failure and expressed in Newtons (N) while the elastic modulus was calculated from the load–deflection data generated by the universal testing machine. Please, see highlighted added statements in methodology. Comment: Regarding statistical interpretation, the three-way ANOVA indicates that the interaction between thermal aging and material type is statistically significant, while interactions involving nanoparticle concentration are not consistently significant. Nonetheless, the manuscript emphasizes enhancement associated with nanoparticle incorporation in generalized terms. Interpretation should more closely reflect the statistical outcomes, distinguishing between significant main effects and non-significant interaction effects. The rejection of null hypotheses should be aligned precisely with the statistical evidence. Response: Thank you for this valuable comment regarding the interpretation of the statistical findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the alignment between statistical outcomes and their interpretation in the manuscript. The three-way ANOVA results were reviewed again to ensure accurate interpretation, particularly with respect to the interaction effects. Furthermore, the null hypotheses were revised and modified as well as the acceptance or rejection of the null hypotheses has been aligned explicitly with the statistical evidence obtained from the ANOVA analysis. Comment: The substantial reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging warrants deeper discussion. While thermal aging is expected to affect mechanical properties, the magnitude of the reported decline is notable. The authors are encouraged to confirm the calculation method for elastic modulus and expand discussion of potential degradation mechanisms. It is well established that post-polymerization conditions significantly influence degree of conversion and mechanical performance in photopolymerized resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1), and the differing post-curing protocols between materials may represent a confounding variable that should be discussed more explicitly. Response : Thank you for this detailed and insightful comment. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the notable reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging. In response, the calculation method for elastic modulus was carefully rechecked and confirmed to be correct, derived from the linear portion of the load–deflection curve generated by the universal testing machine (Instron) according to standard three-point bending calculations. No errors in the measurement or analysis were identified. Additionally, the Discussion section has been expanded to address potential degradation mechanisms. The observed reduction in elastic modulus may be attributed to water sorption, plasticization of the polymer matrix, hydrolytic degradation, and weakening of intermolecular bonds within the resin network, all of which are known to compromise stiffness over time. We also explicitly discuss the role of post-polymerization conditions, including differences in light intensity, exposure duration, wavelength, and temperature, which can affect the degree of conversion and cross-link density. Suboptimal post-curing can result in lower monomer conversion and higher residual monomer content, which may exacerbate the reduction in mechanical properties during thermal aging. These additions provide a more comprehensive understanding of both intrinsic material degradation and potential confounding factors affecting the ND control group, in line with previously reported findings (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019; Tahayeri et al., 2018; Stansbury & Idacavage, 2016). Comment: An inconsistency between the narrative discussion and tabulated results should also be corrected. The manuscript indicates that the elastic modulus of prefabricated teeth did not significantly decrease after aging; however, the corresponding table suggests a statistically significant reduction. Alignment between textual interpretation and statistical data is essential. Response: Thank you for this careful observation. We appreciate the reviewer for identifying this inconsistency. After re-examining the results and the corresponding table, we confirm that the elastic modulus of the prefabricated teeth showed a statistically significant reduction after thermal aging, as indicated in the tabulated data. The statement corrected in the Discussion. Comment: Although many methodological parameters are reported, additional detail would enhance reproducibility. Clear explanation of how elastic modulus was determined, clarification of fracture resistance calculation, and expanded reporting of printing parameters (e.g., exposure settings, curing conditions) would improve transparency. Providing a concise table summarizing subgroup allocation—including aging distribution—would further improve clarity. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Measurement details were added to the methods section as well as more details about printing parameters. Regarding subgroups allocations, this was clarified in the methods sections. Comment: Finally, while summary statistics are provided, the underlying raw data are not included. Sharing individual specimen values as supplementary material would strengthen transparency and allow independent verification of the statistical analyses, consistent with principles of open scientific reporting. Response: thank you for your comment and recommendation. Raw data uploaded as a supplementary file Comment: Overall, this study contributes valuable data to the field of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed denture materials. The experimental framework is generally appropriate, and the inclusion of SEM and FTIR analyses adds depth. The identified concerns primarily relate to clarity, statistical alignment, and methodological reporting rather than fundamental flaws in study design. Response: Thank you for this positive and constructive assessment of our work. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of presentation, consistency in statistical reporting, and methodological transparency. Specifically, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation, and testing procedures. In addition, the statistical analyses and the presentation of results have been rechecked, and the tables and corresponding descriptions in the Results section have been revised to ensure proper alignment and clarity. These revisions were made to enhance the overall readability, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of the study. Comment: In conclusion, the manuscript is potentially suitable for indexing following revision. Clarification of unit consistency improved statistical interpretation, correction of textual inconsistencies, and enhanced methodological transparency are required to ensure that the work is scientifically sound and fully reproducible. Response: Thank you for this constructive evaluation and for considering the manuscript potentially suitable for indexing following revision. We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendations aimed at improving the scientific clarity and reproducibility of the work. In response, the manuscript has been carefully revised to address the points raised. Unit consistency has been corrected throughout the manuscript, particularly regarding the reporting of mechanical properties, to ensure uniformity and clarity. The statistical analyses and their interpretation have been rechecked, and the presentation of results in the text and tables has been revised to eliminate inconsistencies. Additionally, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer and more detailed descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation procedures, and testing protocols, thereby enhancing methodological transparency and reproducibility. We believe that these revisions have strengthened the scientific rigor and overall clarity of the manuscript. Response to reviewer 2 This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two 3D-printed denture tooth resins (NextDent and ASIGA). Mechanical performance was assessed through fracture resistance and elastic modulus testing before and after thermal aging (5000 cycles). SEM and FTIR analyses were additionally conducted to explore fracture behavior and potential chemical interactions within the reinforced systems. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly within the expanding field of additive manufacturing in prosthodontics and nanoparticle reinforcement strategies. The factorial design, relatively large sample size (n = 220), and inclusion of both mechanical and microstructural analyses represent strengths of the study. Previous literature supports the importance of post-processing conditions and nanoparticle dispersion in influencing mechanical performance of photopolymerized dental resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1; Tahayeri et al., 2018 - Ref 2). However, several issues related to clarity of reporting, statistical interpretation, and methodological transparency must be addressed to ensure scientific robustness and reproducibility. Response: Thank you for this constructive and encouraging comment. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the relevance of the topic and the strengths of the study design. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of reporting, statistical presentation, and methodological transparency. The statistical analysis and presentation of results have also been rechecked and clarified, and the tables have been revised to ensure consistent reporting and interpretation of statistical groupings. These revisions were implemented to enhance the scientific rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of the study. Comment: A primary concern relates to the inconsistency in reporting fracture resistance units. In some sections, fracture resistance is presented in Newton (N), whereas in others it is reported in MPa. Since the described mechanical protocol involves compressive loading using a universal testing machine, clarification is required as to whether the analyzed parameter represents fracture load (N) or calculated stress (MPa). If stress values were derived, the method of stress calculation—including area assumptions—must be explicitly described. Consistent unit reporting is essential for transparency and scientific validity, and this issue should be resolved. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that consistent reporting of mechanical test outcomes is essential for clarity and scientific transparency. In the present study, the parameter evaluated was fracture load, which was recorded directly from the universal testing machine (Instron) as the maximum load at failure and expressed in Newtons (N) while the elastic modulus was calculated from the load–deflection data generated by the universal testing machine. Please, see highlighted added statements in methodology. Comment: Regarding statistical interpretation, the three-way ANOVA indicates that the interaction between thermal aging and material type is statistically significant, while interactions involving nanoparticle concentration are not consistently significant. Nonetheless, the manuscript emphasizes enhancement associated with nanoparticle incorporation in generalized terms. Interpretation should more closely reflect the statistical outcomes, distinguishing between significant main effects and non-significant interaction effects. The rejection of null hypotheses should be aligned precisely with the statistical evidence. Response: Thank you for this valuable comment regarding the interpretation of the statistical findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the alignment between statistical outcomes and their interpretation in the manuscript. The three-way ANOVA results were reviewed again to ensure accurate interpretation, particularly with respect to the interaction effects. Furthermore, the null hypotheses were revised and modified as well as the acceptance or rejection of the null hypotheses has been aligned explicitly with the statistical evidence obtained from the ANOVA analysis. Comment: The substantial reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging warrants deeper discussion. While thermal aging is expected to affect mechanical properties, the magnitude of the reported decline is notable. The authors are encouraged to confirm the calculation method for elastic modulus and expand discussion of potential degradation mechanisms. It is well established that post-polymerization conditions significantly influence degree of conversion and mechanical performance in photopolymerized resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1), and the differing post-curing protocols between materials may represent a confounding variable that should be discussed more explicitly. Response : Thank you for this detailed and insightful comment. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the notable reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging. In response, the calculation method for elastic modulus was carefully rechecked and confirmed to be correct, derived from the linear portion of the load–deflection curve generated by the universal testing machine (Instron) according to standard three-point bending calculations. No errors in the measurement or analysis were identified. Additionally, the Discussion section has been expanded to address potential degradation mechanisms. The observed reduction in elastic modulus may be attributed to water sorption, plasticization of the polymer matrix, hydrolytic degradation, and weakening of intermolecular bonds within the resin network, all of which are known to compromise stiffness over time. We also explicitly discuss the role of post-polymerization conditions, including differences in light intensity, exposure duration, wavelength, and temperature, which can affect the degree of conversion and cross-link density. Suboptimal post-curing can result in lower monomer conversion and higher residual monomer content, which may exacerbate the reduction in mechanical properties during thermal aging. These additions provide a more comprehensive understanding of both intrinsic material degradation and potential confounding factors affecting the ND control group, in line with previously reported findings (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019; Tahayeri et al., 2018; Stansbury & Idacavage, 2016). Comment: An inconsistency between the narrative discussion and tabulated results should also be corrected. The manuscript indicates that the elastic modulus of prefabricated teeth did not significantly decrease after aging; however, the corresponding table suggests a statistically significant reduction. Alignment between textual interpretation and statistical data is essential. Response: Thank you for this careful observation. We appreciate the reviewer for identifying this inconsistency. After re-examining the results and the corresponding table, we confirm that the elastic modulus of the prefabricated teeth showed a statistically significant reduction after thermal aging, as indicated in the tabulated data. The statement corrected in the Discussion. Comment: Although many methodological parameters are reported, additional detail would enhance reproducibility. Clear explanation of how elastic modulus was determined, clarification of fracture resistance calculation, and expanded reporting of printing parameters (e.g., exposure settings, curing conditions) would improve transparency. Providing a concise table summarizing subgroup allocation—including aging distribution—would further improve clarity. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Measurement details were added to the methods section as well as more details about printing parameters. Regarding subgroups allocations, this was clarified in the methods sections. Comment: Finally, while summary statistics are provided, the underlying raw data are not included. Sharing individual specimen values as supplementary material would strengthen transparency and allow independent verification of the statistical analyses, consistent with principles of open scientific reporting. Response: thank you for your comment and recommendation. Raw data uploaded as a supplementary file Comment: Overall, this study contributes valuable data to the field of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed denture materials. The experimental framework is generally appropriate, and the inclusion of SEM and FTIR analyses adds depth. The identified concerns primarily relate to clarity, statistical alignment, and methodological reporting rather than fundamental flaws in study design. Response: Thank you for this positive and constructive assessment of our work. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of presentation, consistency in statistical reporting, and methodological transparency. Specifically, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation, and testing procedures. In addition, the statistical analyses and the presentation of results have been rechecked, and the tables and corresponding descriptions in the Results section have been revised to ensure proper alignment and clarity. These revisions were made to enhance the overall readability, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of the study. Comment: In conclusion, the manuscript is potentially suitable for indexing following revision. Clarification of unit consistency improved statistical interpretation, correction of textual inconsistencies, and enhanced methodological transparency are required to ensure that the work is scientifically sound and fully reproducible. Response: Thank you for this constructive evaluation and for considering the manuscript potentially suitable for indexing following revision. We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendations aimed at improving the scientific clarity and reproducibility of the work. In response, the manuscript has been carefully revised to address the points raised. Unit consistency has been corrected throughout the manuscript, particularly regarding the reporting of mechanical properties, to ensure uniformity and clarity. The statistical analyses and their interpretation have been rechecked, and the presentation of results in the text and tables has been revised to eliminate inconsistencies. Additionally, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer and more detailed descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation procedures, and testing protocols, thereby enhancing methodological transparency and reproducibility. We believe that these revisions have strengthened the scientific rigor and overall clarity of the manuscript. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Mohammed Gad , Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 23 Mar 2026 Author Response Response to reviewer 2 This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two ... Continue reading Response to reviewer 2 This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two 3D-printed denture tooth resins (NextDent and ASIGA). Mechanical performance was assessed through fracture resistance and elastic modulus testing before and after thermal aging (5000 cycles). SEM and FTIR analyses were additionally conducted to explore fracture behavior and potential chemical interactions within the reinforced systems. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly within the expanding field of additive manufacturing in prosthodontics and nanoparticle reinforcement strategies. The factorial design, relatively large sample size (n = 220), and inclusion of both mechanical and microstructural analyses represent strengths of the study. Previous literature supports the importance of post-processing conditions and nanoparticle dispersion in influencing mechanical performance of photopolymerized dental resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1; Tahayeri et al., 2018 - Ref 2). However, several issues related to clarity of reporting, statistical interpretation, and methodological transparency must be addressed to ensure scientific robustness and reproducibility. Response: Thank you for this constructive and encouraging comment. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the relevance of the topic and the strengths of the study design. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of reporting, statistical presentation, and methodological transparency. The statistical analysis and presentation of results have also been rechecked and clarified, and the tables have been revised to ensure consistent reporting and interpretation of statistical groupings. These revisions were implemented to enhance the scientific rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of the study. Comment: A primary concern relates to the inconsistency in reporting fracture resistance units. In some sections, fracture resistance is presented in Newton (N), whereas in others it is reported in MPa. Since the described mechanical protocol involves compressive loading using a universal testing machine, clarification is required as to whether the analyzed parameter represents fracture load (N) or calculated stress (MPa). If stress values were derived, the method of stress calculation—including area assumptions—must be explicitly described. Consistent unit reporting is essential for transparency and scientific validity, and this issue should be resolved. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that consistent reporting of mechanical test outcomes is essential for clarity and scientific transparency. In the present study, the parameter evaluated was fracture load, which was recorded directly from the universal testing machine (Instron) as the maximum load at failure and expressed in Newtons (N) while the elastic modulus was calculated from the load–deflection data generated by the universal testing machine. Please, see highlighted added statements in methodology. Comment: Regarding statistical interpretation, the three-way ANOVA indicates that the interaction between thermal aging and material type is statistically significant, while interactions involving nanoparticle concentration are not consistently significant. Nonetheless, the manuscript emphasizes enhancement associated with nanoparticle incorporation in generalized terms. Interpretation should more closely reflect the statistical outcomes, distinguishing between significant main effects and non-significant interaction effects. The rejection of null hypotheses should be aligned precisely with the statistical evidence. Response: Thank you for this valuable comment regarding the interpretation of the statistical findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the alignment between statistical outcomes and their interpretation in the manuscript. The three-way ANOVA results were reviewed again to ensure accurate interpretation, particularly with respect to the interaction effects. Furthermore, the null hypotheses were revised and modified as well as the acceptance or rejection of the null hypotheses has been aligned explicitly with the statistical evidence obtained from the ANOVA analysis. Comment: The substantial reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging warrants deeper discussion. While thermal aging is expected to affect mechanical properties, the magnitude of the reported decline is notable. The authors are encouraged to confirm the calculation method for elastic modulus and expand discussion of potential degradation mechanisms. It is well established that post-polymerization conditions significantly influence degree of conversion and mechanical performance in photopolymerized resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1), and the differing post-curing protocols between materials may represent a confounding variable that should be discussed more explicitly. Response : Thank you for this detailed and insightful comment. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the notable reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging. In response, the calculation method for elastic modulus was carefully rechecked and confirmed to be correct, derived from the linear portion of the load–deflection curve generated by the universal testing machine (Instron) according to standard three-point bending calculations. No errors in the measurement or analysis were identified. Additionally, the Discussion section has been expanded to address potential degradation mechanisms. The observed reduction in elastic modulus may be attributed to water sorption, plasticization of the polymer matrix, hydrolytic degradation, and weakening of intermolecular bonds within the resin network, all of which are known to compromise stiffness over time. We also explicitly discuss the role of post-polymerization conditions, including differences in light intensity, exposure duration, wavelength, and temperature, which can affect the degree of conversion and cross-link density. Suboptimal post-curing can result in lower monomer conversion and higher residual monomer content, which may exacerbate the reduction in mechanical properties during thermal aging. These additions provide a more comprehensive understanding of both intrinsic material degradation and potential confounding factors affecting the ND control group, in line with previously reported findings (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019; Tahayeri et al., 2018; Stansbury & Idacavage, 2016). Comment: An inconsistency between the narrative discussion and tabulated results should also be corrected. The manuscript indicates that the elastic modulus of prefabricated teeth did not significantly decrease after aging; however, the corresponding table suggests a statistically significant reduction. Alignment between textual interpretation and statistical data is essential. Response: Thank you for this careful observation. We appreciate the reviewer for identifying this inconsistency. After re-examining the results and the corresponding table, we confirm that the elastic modulus of the prefabricated teeth showed a statistically significant reduction after thermal aging, as indicated in the tabulated data. The statement corrected in the Discussion. Comment: Although many methodological parameters are reported, additional detail would enhance reproducibility. Clear explanation of how elastic modulus was determined, clarification of fracture resistance calculation, and expanded reporting of printing parameters (e.g., exposure settings, curing conditions) would improve transparency. Providing a concise table summarizing subgroup allocation—including aging distribution—would further improve clarity. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Measurement details were added to the methods section as well as more details about printing parameters. Regarding subgroups allocations, this was clarified in the methods sections. Comment: Finally, while summary statistics are provided, the underlying raw data are not included. Sharing individual specimen values as supplementary material would strengthen transparency and allow independent verification of the statistical analyses, consistent with principles of open scientific reporting. Response: thank you for your comment and recommendation. Raw data uploaded as a supplementary file Comment: Overall, this study contributes valuable data to the field of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed denture materials. The experimental framework is generally appropriate, and the inclusion of SEM and FTIR analyses adds depth. The identified concerns primarily relate to clarity, statistical alignment, and methodological reporting rather than fundamental flaws in study design. Response: Thank you for this positive and constructive assessment of our work. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of presentation, consistency in statistical reporting, and methodological transparency. Specifically, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation, and testing procedures. In addition, the statistical analyses and the presentation of results have been rechecked, and the tables and corresponding descriptions in the Results section have been revised to ensure proper alignment and clarity. These revisions were made to enhance the overall readability, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of the study. Comment: In conclusion, the manuscript is potentially suitable for indexing following revision. Clarification of unit consistency improved statistical interpretation, correction of textual inconsistencies, and enhanced methodological transparency are required to ensure that the work is scientifically sound and fully reproducible. Response: Thank you for this constructive evaluation and for considering the manuscript potentially suitable for indexing following revision. We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendations aimed at improving the scientific clarity and reproducibility of the work. In response, the manuscript has been carefully revised to address the points raised. Unit consistency has been corrected throughout the manuscript, particularly regarding the reporting of mechanical properties, to ensure uniformity and clarity. The statistical analyses and their interpretation have been rechecked, and the presentation of results in the text and tables has been revised to eliminate inconsistencies. Additionally, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer and more detailed descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation procedures, and testing protocols, thereby enhancing methodological transparency and reproducibility. We believe that these revisions have strengthened the scientific rigor and overall clarity of the manuscript. Response to reviewer 2 This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two 3D-printed denture tooth resins (NextDent and ASIGA). Mechanical performance was assessed through fracture resistance and elastic modulus testing before and after thermal aging (5000 cycles). SEM and FTIR analyses were additionally conducted to explore fracture behavior and potential chemical interactions within the reinforced systems. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly within the expanding field of additive manufacturing in prosthodontics and nanoparticle reinforcement strategies. The factorial design, relatively large sample size (n = 220), and inclusion of both mechanical and microstructural analyses represent strengths of the study. Previous literature supports the importance of post-processing conditions and nanoparticle dispersion in influencing mechanical performance of photopolymerized dental resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1; Tahayeri et al., 2018 - Ref 2). However, several issues related to clarity of reporting, statistical interpretation, and methodological transparency must be addressed to ensure scientific robustness and reproducibility. Response: Thank you for this constructive and encouraging comment. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the relevance of the topic and the strengths of the study design. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of reporting, statistical presentation, and methodological transparency. The statistical analysis and presentation of results have also been rechecked and clarified, and the tables have been revised to ensure consistent reporting and interpretation of statistical groupings. These revisions were implemented to enhance the scientific rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of the study. Comment: A primary concern relates to the inconsistency in reporting fracture resistance units. In some sections, fracture resistance is presented in Newton (N), whereas in others it is reported in MPa. Since the described mechanical protocol involves compressive loading using a universal testing machine, clarification is required as to whether the analyzed parameter represents fracture load (N) or calculated stress (MPa). If stress values were derived, the method of stress calculation—including area assumptions—must be explicitly described. Consistent unit reporting is essential for transparency and scientific validity, and this issue should be resolved. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that consistent reporting of mechanical test outcomes is essential for clarity and scientific transparency. In the present study, the parameter evaluated was fracture load, which was recorded directly from the universal testing machine (Instron) as the maximum load at failure and expressed in Newtons (N) while the elastic modulus was calculated from the load–deflection data generated by the universal testing machine. Please, see highlighted added statements in methodology. Comment: Regarding statistical interpretation, the three-way ANOVA indicates that the interaction between thermal aging and material type is statistically significant, while interactions involving nanoparticle concentration are not consistently significant. Nonetheless, the manuscript emphasizes enhancement associated with nanoparticle incorporation in generalized terms. Interpretation should more closely reflect the statistical outcomes, distinguishing between significant main effects and non-significant interaction effects. The rejection of null hypotheses should be aligned precisely with the statistical evidence. Response: Thank you for this valuable comment regarding the interpretation of the statistical findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the alignment between statistical outcomes and their interpretation in the manuscript. The three-way ANOVA results were reviewed again to ensure accurate interpretation, particularly with respect to the interaction effects. Furthermore, the null hypotheses were revised and modified as well as the acceptance or rejection of the null hypotheses has been aligned explicitly with the statistical evidence obtained from the ANOVA analysis. Comment: The substantial reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging warrants deeper discussion. While thermal aging is expected to affect mechanical properties, the magnitude of the reported decline is notable. The authors are encouraged to confirm the calculation method for elastic modulus and expand discussion of potential degradation mechanisms. It is well established that post-polymerization conditions significantly influence degree of conversion and mechanical performance in photopolymerized resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1), and the differing post-curing protocols between materials may represent a confounding variable that should be discussed more explicitly. Response : Thank you for this detailed and insightful comment. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the notable reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging. In response, the calculation method for elastic modulus was carefully rechecked and confirmed to be correct, derived from the linear portion of the load–deflection curve generated by the universal testing machine (Instron) according to standard three-point bending calculations. No errors in the measurement or analysis were identified. Additionally, the Discussion section has been expanded to address potential degradation mechanisms. The observed reduction in elastic modulus may be attributed to water sorption, plasticization of the polymer matrix, hydrolytic degradation, and weakening of intermolecular bonds within the resin network, all of which are known to compromise stiffness over time. We also explicitly discuss the role of post-polymerization conditions, including differences in light intensity, exposure duration, wavelength, and temperature, which can affect the degree of conversion and cross-link density. Suboptimal post-curing can result in lower monomer conversion and higher residual monomer content, which may exacerbate the reduction in mechanical properties during thermal aging. These additions provide a more comprehensive understanding of both intrinsic material degradation and potential confounding factors affecting the ND control group, in line with previously reported findings (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019; Tahayeri et al., 2018; Stansbury & Idacavage, 2016). Comment: An inconsistency between the narrative discussion and tabulated results should also be corrected. The manuscript indicates that the elastic modulus of prefabricated teeth did not significantly decrease after aging; however, the corresponding table suggests a statistically significant reduction. Alignment between textual interpretation and statistical data is essential. Response: Thank you for this careful observation. We appreciate the reviewer for identifying this inconsistency. After re-examining the results and the corresponding table, we confirm that the elastic modulus of the prefabricated teeth showed a statistically significant reduction after thermal aging, as indicated in the tabulated data. The statement corrected in the Discussion. Comment: Although many methodological parameters are reported, additional detail would enhance reproducibility. Clear explanation of how elastic modulus was determined, clarification of fracture resistance calculation, and expanded reporting of printing parameters (e.g., exposure settings, curing conditions) would improve transparency. Providing a concise table summarizing subgroup allocation—including aging distribution—would further improve clarity. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Measurement details were added to the methods section as well as more details about printing parameters. Regarding subgroups allocations, this was clarified in the methods sections. Comment: Finally, while summary statistics are provided, the underlying raw data are not included. Sharing individual specimen values as supplementary material would strengthen transparency and allow independent verification of the statistical analyses, consistent with principles of open scientific reporting. Response: thank you for your comment and recommendation. Raw data uploaded as a supplementary file Comment: Overall, this study contributes valuable data to the field of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed denture materials. The experimental framework is generally appropriate, and the inclusion of SEM and FTIR analyses adds depth. The identified concerns primarily relate to clarity, statistical alignment, and methodological reporting rather than fundamental flaws in study design. Response: Thank you for this positive and constructive assessment of our work. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of presentation, consistency in statistical reporting, and methodological transparency. Specifically, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation, and testing procedures. In addition, the statistical analyses and the presentation of results have been rechecked, and the tables and corresponding descriptions in the Results section have been revised to ensure proper alignment and clarity. These revisions were made to enhance the overall readability, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of the study. Comment: In conclusion, the manuscript is potentially suitable for indexing following revision. Clarification of unit consistency improved statistical interpretation, correction of textual inconsistencies, and enhanced methodological transparency are required to ensure that the work is scientifically sound and fully reproducible. Response: Thank you for this constructive evaluation and for considering the manuscript potentially suitable for indexing following revision. We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendations aimed at improving the scientific clarity and reproducibility of the work. In response, the manuscript has been carefully revised to address the points raised. Unit consistency has been corrected throughout the manuscript, particularly regarding the reporting of mechanical properties, to ensure uniformity and clarity. The statistical analyses and their interpretation have been rechecked, and the presentation of results in the text and tables has been revised to eliminate inconsistencies. Additionally, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer and more detailed descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation procedures, and testing protocols, thereby enhancing methodological transparency and reproducibility. We believe that these revisions have strengthened the scientific rigor and overall clarity of the manuscript. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 10 Sep 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Tosun B. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184057.r414809 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v1#referee-response-414809 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Sep 2025 Büşra Tosun , Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Dentistry, Bolu, Turkey Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184057.r414809 1. Abstract Although the abstract briefly presents the study's objective and key findings, it lacks numerical data on statistical significance (e.g., p-values). The absence of these values makes it difficult for readers to assess the strength and reliability of ... Continue reading READ ALL 1. Abstract Although the abstract briefly presents the study's objective and key findings, it lacks numerical data on statistical significance (e.g., p-values). The absence of these values makes it difficult for readers to assess the strength and reliability of the reported outcomes. The results section in the abstract mentions the general effects of nanoparticle incorporation, yet it fails to highlight which specific group demonstrated superior performance or in which material these enhancements were more prominent. This weakens the interpretability and impact of the findings. The final sentence of the abstract should be revised to clearly express the clinical relevance of the study. For instance, a conclusive statement such as “The ASIGA resin appears to be more suitable for clinical use” would provide a more concrete and impactful takeaway. 2. Introduction While the introduction demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic, it does not adequately emphasize the study’s novelty or specific contribution to the existing literature. The authors should clearly state what research gap this study fills or what unique question it attempts to answer that has not been addressed previously. The null hypotheses are technically stated but should be presented in a more concise and isolated format to enhance the logical clarity of the study's objectives and to ensure readers can easily identify the guiding assumptions of the research. 3. Materials and Methods Although the sample dimensions, geometric shapes, and build orientations are partially described, further clarification is necessary to ensure the methodology is reproducible by other researchers. Detailed specifications are essential for standardization and transparency. The post-curing protocol is briefly mentioned; however, critical technical parameters such as the type of light source (LED/UV), wavelength, and total curing duration are missing. These details should be explicitly included, as they significantly influence the mechanical behavior of photopolymer resins. The statistical software used for the data analysis (e.g., SPSS, Jamovi) is not specified, nor is the exact strategy for data interpretation. Without this information, methodological transparency is compromised, and it becomes challenging to assess the validity of the statistical approach. Although the text mentions that a power analysis was performed, there is no information about the effect size used, or whether a post hoc power analysis was conducted. Including these details would enhance the statistical rigor and reliability of the findings. 4. Results The results are presented only in tabular format, without any supporting graphical representations such as bar charts or error bars. The lack of visual data summaries makes it more difficult for readers to quickly interpret the findings and compare group performances. FTIR and SEM analyses are discussed within the text, but the associated figures are lacking essential annotations, such as peak labels, magnification levels, and explanatory captions. These omissions hinder the reader’s ability to critically evaluate the microstructural and chemical characterization data. In the SEM section, terms like “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces” are briefly mentioned; however, the specific groups where these fracture patterns occurred are not clearly identified, nor are they visually indicated on the figures. This limits the clarity and scientific depth of the microstructural analysis. 5. Discussion The discussion follows the literature reasonably well, but the comparisons remain superficial in several areas. Each key finding should be more critically analyzed in light of previous studies, with proper referencing to enhance the scholarly depth of the interpretation. The discussion should more explicitly address which type of nanoparticle (ZNP or SNP) was more effective within which resin system (ASIGA or NextDent). Presenting these outcomes with clear material-specific insights would improve the applicability and specificity of the conclusions. Clinical implications are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should elaborate on how these materials might be implemented in practice—such as which types of dentures or patient scenarios would most benefit from the enhanced properties of these nanocomposite resins. The observed decrease in elastic modulus following thermal aging should be analyzed more thoroughly. Possible mechanisms such as network degradation or disruption of polymer cross-linking due to increased nanoparticle content should be hypothesized and supported with relevant references. 6. Figures and Tables In the FTIR spectra, significant peaks should be clearly labeled, and the corresponding functional groups identified. This would improve the interpretability of the chemical bonding analysis. Statistically significant differences between groups should be visually summarized using bar graphs with standard deviation/error bars and appropriate significance indicators (e.g., asterisks). This would allow readers to more quickly grasp the magnitude and relevance of the differences reported. Recommendation: Major Revision The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents valuable findings. However, significant improvements are required in data presentation, methodological transparency, and clinical interpretation. I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered for indexing. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Prosthodontics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Tosun B. Reviewer Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184057.r414809 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v1#referee-response-414809 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Feb 2026 Mohammed Gad , Substitutive Dental Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 23 Feb 2026 Author Response Response to reviewer comments Recommendation: Major Revision The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents valuable findings. However, significant improvements are required in data presentation, methodological transparency, and clinical interpretation. ... Continue reading Response to reviewer comments Recommendation: Major Revision The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents valuable findings. However, significant improvements are required in data presentation, methodological transparency, and clinical interpretation. I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered for indexing. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful evaluation and constructive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the relevance of our topic and the value of our findings. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to enhance the clarity and transparency of data presentation, provide more detailed descriptions of the methodology, and strengthen the discussion of the clinical implications of our results. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the overall quality and interpretability of the manuscript. 1. Abstract Comment: Although the abstract briefly presents the study's objective and key findings, it lacks numerical data on statistical significance (e.g., p-values). The absence of these values makes it difficult for readers to assess the strength and reliability of the reported outcomes. Response: Thank you for your comment. P values added to the abstract Comment: The results section in the abstract mentions the general effects of nanoparticle incorporation, yet it fails to highlight which specific group demonstrated superior performance or in which material these enhancements were more prominent. This weakens the interpretability and impact of the findings. Response: Thank you for your comment. The most superior performance material is added Comment: The final sentence of the abstract should be revised to clearly express the clinical relevance of the study. For instance, a conclusive statement such as “The ASIGA resin appears to be more suitable for clinical use” would provide a more concrete and impactful takeaway. Response: Thank you for your comment and recommendation. The statement was revised. 2. Introduction Comment: While the introduction demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic, it does not adequately emphasize the study’s novelty or specific contribution to the existing literature. The authors should clearly state what research gap this study fills or what unique question it attempts to answer that has not been addressed previously. Response: thank you for your comment. the research gap added at the end of introduction and the clarifying of novelty was highlighted Comment: The null hypotheses are technically stated but should be presented in a more concise and isolated format to enhance the logical clarity of the study's objectives and to ensure readers can easily identify the guiding assumptions of the research. Response : Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The null hypotheses have been revised to appear in a clearer and more concise format, presented in a separate paragraph within the Introduction section 3. Materials and Methods Comment: Although the sample dimensions, geometric shapes, and build orientations are partially described, further clarification is necessary to ensure the methodology is reproducible by other researchers. Detailed specifications are essential for standardization and transparency. Response: Thank you for your valuable observation. Additional details regarding the specimen dimensions, geometric configuration, and build orientation have been added to the Materials. Comment: The post-curing protocol is briefly mentioned; however, critical technical parameters such as the type of light source (LED/UV), wavelength, and total curing duration are missing. These details should be explicitly included, as they significantly influence the mechanical behavior of photopolymer resins. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, the recommended topic was done. Comment: The statistical software used for data analysis (e.g., SPSS, Jamovi) is not specified, nor is the exact strategy for data interpretation. Without this information, methodological transparency is compromised, and it becomes challenging to assess the validity of the statistical approach. Response: the name of the statistical software has been added Comment: Although the text mentions that a power analysis was performed, there is no information about the effect size used, or whether a post hoc power analysis was conducted. Including these details would enhance the statistical rigor and reliability of the findings. Response: we added all the information while writing statements related to sample size, which was used to entire for the sample size computation. 4. Results Comment: The results are presented only in tabular format, without any supporting graphical representations such as bar charts or error bars. The lack of visual data summaries makes it more difficult for readers to quickly interpret the findings and compare group performances. Response: Thank you for your response. In reference to Tables 2 and 5, two supplementary charts have been added (figure 6 and 7). Comment: FTIR and SEM analyses are discussed within the text, but the associated figures are lacking essential annotations, such as peak labels, magnification levels, and explanatory captions. These omissions hinder the reader’s ability to critically evaluate the microstructural and chemical characterization data. Response: Thank you for your comment. Main peaks have labeled of each spectrum and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. For SEM the given magnification for each image is provided along with figures captions as recommended. Comment: In the SEM section, terms like “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces” are briefly mentioned; however, the specific groups where these fracture patterns occurred are not clearly identified, nor are they visually indicated on the figures. This limits the clarity and scientific depth of the microstructural analysis. Response: Thank you for your comment, we considered your suggestion and extended the results part with more details about the “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces”. The corresponding (fig. 5) is modified accordingly where crack propagation and lamellar surfaces are identified and marked with arrows (see modified fig. 5) 5. Discussion Comment: The discussion follows the literature reasonably well, but the comparisons remain superficial in several areas. Each key finding should be more critically analyzed in light of previous studies, with proper referencing to enhance the scholarly depth of the interpretation. Response: thank you for your Comment, comparison with other studies have been added in lines 324-337 Comment: The discussion should more explicitly address which type of nanoparticle (ZNP or SNP) was more effective within which resin system (ASIGA or NextDent). Presenting these outcomes with clear material-specific insights would improve the applicability and specificity of the conclusions. Response : thank you for your valuable comments. Referral to NPs type effect was added to discussion Comment: Clinical implications are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should elaborate on how these materials might be implemented in practice—such as which types of dentures or patient scenarios would most benefit from the enhanced properties of these nanocomposite resins. Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. To address this point, a graph illustrating the clinical relevance and potential applications of the nanocomposite 3D-printed resins has been added to the Discussion section (page 14). Comment: The observed decrease in elastic modulus following thermal aging should be analyzed more thoroughly. Possible mechanisms such as network degradation or disruption of polymer cross-linking due to increased nanoparticle content should be hypothesized and supported with relevant references. Response: thank you for the comment, more details have been added in lines 437-448 6. Figures and Tables Comment: In the FTIR spectra, significant peaks should be clearly labeled, and the corresponding functional groups identified. This would improve the interpretability of the chemical bonding analysis. Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, we have labeled the main peaks of each spectra and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. However, these functional groups could not be mentioned within the figures due to limited space. Comment: Statistically significant differences between groups should be visually summarized using bar graphs with standard deviation/error bars and appropriate significance indicators (e.g., asterisks). This would allow readers to more quickly grasp the magnitude and relevance of the differences reported. Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. Bar graphs have been added to visually summarize the statistically significant differences between groups. These additions are now presented in Figures 6 and 7. Response to reviewer comments Recommendation: Major Revision The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents valuable findings. However, significant improvements are required in data presentation, methodological transparency, and clinical interpretation. I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered for indexing. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful evaluation and constructive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the relevance of our topic and the value of our findings. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to enhance the clarity and transparency of data presentation, provide more detailed descriptions of the methodology, and strengthen the discussion of the clinical implications of our results. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the overall quality and interpretability of the manuscript. 1. Abstract Comment: Although the abstract briefly presents the study's objective and key findings, it lacks numerical data on statistical significance (e.g., p-values). The absence of these values makes it difficult for readers to assess the strength and reliability of the reported outcomes. Response: Thank you for your comment. P values added to the abstract Comment: The results section in the abstract mentions the general effects of nanoparticle incorporation, yet it fails to highlight which specific group demonstrated superior performance or in which material these enhancements were more prominent. This weakens the interpretability and impact of the findings. Response: Thank you for your comment. The most superior performance material is added Comment: The final sentence of the abstract should be revised to clearly express the clinical relevance of the study. For instance, a conclusive statement such as “The ASIGA resin appears to be more suitable for clinical use” would provide a more concrete and impactful takeaway. Response: Thank you for your comment and recommendation. The statement was revised. 2. Introduction Comment: While the introduction demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic, it does not adequately emphasize the study’s novelty or specific contribution to the existing literature. The authors should clearly state what research gap this study fills or what unique question it attempts to answer that has not been addressed previously. Response: thank you for your comment. the research gap added at the end of introduction and the clarifying of novelty was highlighted Comment: The null hypotheses are technically stated but should be presented in a more concise and isolated format to enhance the logical clarity of the study's objectives and to ensure readers can easily identify the guiding assumptions of the research. Response : Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The null hypotheses have been revised to appear in a clearer and more concise format, presented in a separate paragraph within the Introduction section 3. Materials and Methods Comment: Although the sample dimensions, geometric shapes, and build orientations are partially described, further clarification is necessary to ensure the methodology is reproducible by other researchers. Detailed specifications are essential for standardization and transparency. Response: Thank you for your valuable observation. Additional details regarding the specimen dimensions, geometric configuration, and build orientation have been added to the Materials. Comment: The post-curing protocol is briefly mentioned; however, critical technical parameters such as the type of light source (LED/UV), wavelength, and total curing duration are missing. These details should be explicitly included, as they significantly influence the mechanical behavior of photopolymer resins. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, the recommended topic was done. Comment: The statistical software used for data analysis (e.g., SPSS, Jamovi) is not specified, nor is the exact strategy for data interpretation. Without this information, methodological transparency is compromised, and it becomes challenging to assess the validity of the statistical approach. Response: the name of the statistical software has been added Comment: Although the text mentions that a power analysis was performed, there is no information about the effect size used, or whether a post hoc power analysis was conducted. Including these details would enhance the statistical rigor and reliability of the findings. Response: we added all the information while writing statements related to sample size, which was used to entire for the sample size computation. 4. Results Comment: The results are presented only in tabular format, without any supporting graphical representations such as bar charts or error bars. The lack of visual data summaries makes it more difficult for readers to quickly interpret the findings and compare group performances. Response: Thank you for your response. In reference to Tables 2 and 5, two supplementary charts have been added (figure 6 and 7). Comment: FTIR and SEM analyses are discussed within the text, but the associated figures are lacking essential annotations, such as peak labels, magnification levels, and explanatory captions. These omissions hinder the reader’s ability to critically evaluate the microstructural and chemical characterization data. Response: Thank you for your comment. Main peaks have labeled of each spectrum and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. For SEM the given magnification for each image is provided along with figures captions as recommended. Comment: In the SEM section, terms like “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces” are briefly mentioned; however, the specific groups where these fracture patterns occurred are not clearly identified, nor are they visually indicated on the figures. This limits the clarity and scientific depth of the microstructural analysis. Response: Thank you for your comment, we considered your suggestion and extended the results part with more details about the “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces”. The corresponding (fig. 5) is modified accordingly where crack propagation and lamellar surfaces are identified and marked with arrows (see modified fig. 5) 5. Discussion Comment: The discussion follows the literature reasonably well, but the comparisons remain superficial in several areas. Each key finding should be more critically analyzed in light of previous studies, with proper referencing to enhance the scholarly depth of the interpretation. Response: thank you for your Comment, comparison with other studies have been added in lines 324-337 Comment: The discussion should more explicitly address which type of nanoparticle (ZNP or SNP) was more effective within which resin system (ASIGA or NextDent). Presenting these outcomes with clear material-specific insights would improve the applicability and specificity of the conclusions. Response : thank you for your valuable comments. Referral to NPs type effect was added to discussion Comment: Clinical implications are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should elaborate on how these materials might be implemented in practice—such as which types of dentures or patient scenarios would most benefit from the enhanced properties of these nanocomposite resins. Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. To address this point, a graph illustrating the clinical relevance and potential applications of the nanocomposite 3D-printed resins has been added to the Discussion section (page 14). Comment: The observed decrease in elastic modulus following thermal aging should be analyzed more thoroughly. Possible mechanisms such as network degradation or disruption of polymer cross-linking due to increased nanoparticle content should be hypothesized and supported with relevant references. Response: thank you for the comment, more details have been added in lines 437-448 6. Figures and Tables Comment: In the FTIR spectra, significant peaks should be clearly labeled, and the corresponding functional groups identified. This would improve the interpretability of the chemical bonding analysis. Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, we have labeled the main peaks of each spectra and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. However, these functional groups could not be mentioned within the figures due to limited space. Comment: Statistically significant differences between groups should be visually summarized using bar graphs with standard deviation/error bars and appropriate significance indicators (e.g., asterisks). This would allow readers to more quickly grasp the magnitude and relevance of the differences reported. Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. Bar graphs have been added to visually summarize the statistically significant differences between groups. These additions are now presented in Figures 6 and 7. Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Feb 2026 Mohammed Gad , Substitutive Dental Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia 23 Feb 2026 Author Response Response to reviewer comments Recommendation: Major Revision The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents valuable findings. However, significant improvements are required in data presentation, methodological transparency, and clinical interpretation. ... Continue reading Response to reviewer comments Recommendation: Major Revision The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents valuable findings. However, significant improvements are required in data presentation, methodological transparency, and clinical interpretation. I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered for indexing. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful evaluation and constructive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the relevance of our topic and the value of our findings. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to enhance the clarity and transparency of data presentation, provide more detailed descriptions of the methodology, and strengthen the discussion of the clinical implications of our results. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the overall quality and interpretability of the manuscript. 1. Abstract Comment: Although the abstract briefly presents the study's objective and key findings, it lacks numerical data on statistical significance (e.g., p-values). The absence of these values makes it difficult for readers to assess the strength and reliability of the reported outcomes. Response: Thank you for your comment. P values added to the abstract Comment: The results section in the abstract mentions the general effects of nanoparticle incorporation, yet it fails to highlight which specific group demonstrated superior performance or in which material these enhancements were more prominent. This weakens the interpretability and impact of the findings. Response: Thank you for your comment. The most superior performance material is added Comment: The final sentence of the abstract should be revised to clearly express the clinical relevance of the study. For instance, a conclusive statement such as “The ASIGA resin appears to be more suitable for clinical use” would provide a more concrete and impactful takeaway. Response: Thank you for your comment and recommendation. The statement was revised. 2. Introduction Comment: While the introduction demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic, it does not adequately emphasize the study’s novelty or specific contribution to the existing literature. The authors should clearly state what research gap this study fills or what unique question it attempts to answer that has not been addressed previously. Response: thank you for your comment. the research gap added at the end of introduction and the clarifying of novelty was highlighted Comment: The null hypotheses are technically stated but should be presented in a more concise and isolated format to enhance the logical clarity of the study's objectives and to ensure readers can easily identify the guiding assumptions of the research. Response : Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The null hypotheses have been revised to appear in a clearer and more concise format, presented in a separate paragraph within the Introduction section 3. Materials and Methods Comment: Although the sample dimensions, geometric shapes, and build orientations are partially described, further clarification is necessary to ensure the methodology is reproducible by other researchers. Detailed specifications are essential for standardization and transparency. Response: Thank you for your valuable observation. Additional details regarding the specimen dimensions, geometric configuration, and build orientation have been added to the Materials. Comment: The post-curing protocol is briefly mentioned; however, critical technical parameters such as the type of light source (LED/UV), wavelength, and total curing duration are missing. These details should be explicitly included, as they significantly influence the mechanical behavior of photopolymer resins. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, the recommended topic was done. Comment: The statistical software used for data analysis (e.g., SPSS, Jamovi) is not specified, nor is the exact strategy for data interpretation. Without this information, methodological transparency is compromised, and it becomes challenging to assess the validity of the statistical approach. Response: the name of the statistical software has been added Comment: Although the text mentions that a power analysis was performed, there is no information about the effect size used, or whether a post hoc power analysis was conducted. Including these details would enhance the statistical rigor and reliability of the findings. Response: we added all the information while writing statements related to sample size, which was used to entire for the sample size computation. 4. Results Comment: The results are presented only in tabular format, without any supporting graphical representations such as bar charts or error bars. The lack of visual data summaries makes it more difficult for readers to quickly interpret the findings and compare group performances. Response: Thank you for your response. In reference to Tables 2 and 5, two supplementary charts have been added (figure 6 and 7). Comment: FTIR and SEM analyses are discussed within the text, but the associated figures are lacking essential annotations, such as peak labels, magnification levels, and explanatory captions. These omissions hinder the reader’s ability to critically evaluate the microstructural and chemical characterization data. Response: Thank you for your comment. Main peaks have labeled of each spectrum and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. For SEM the given magnification for each image is provided along with figures captions as recommended. Comment: In the SEM section, terms like “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces” are briefly mentioned; however, the specific groups where these fracture patterns occurred are not clearly identified, nor are they visually indicated on the figures. This limits the clarity and scientific depth of the microstructural analysis. Response: Thank you for your comment, we considered your suggestion and extended the results part with more details about the “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces”. The corresponding (fig. 5) is modified accordingly where crack propagation and lamellar surfaces are identified and marked with arrows (see modified fig. 5) 5. Discussion Comment: The discussion follows the literature reasonably well, but the comparisons remain superficial in several areas. Each key finding should be more critically analyzed in light of previous studies, with proper referencing to enhance the scholarly depth of the interpretation. Response: thank you for your Comment, comparison with other studies have been added in lines 324-337 Comment: The discussion should more explicitly address which type of nanoparticle (ZNP or SNP) was more effective within which resin system (ASIGA or NextDent). Presenting these outcomes with clear material-specific insights would improve the applicability and specificity of the conclusions. Response : thank you for your valuable comments. Referral to NPs type effect was added to discussion Comment: Clinical implications are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should elaborate on how these materials might be implemented in practice—such as which types of dentures or patient scenarios would most benefit from the enhanced properties of these nanocomposite resins. Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. To address this point, a graph illustrating the clinical relevance and potential applications of the nanocomposite 3D-printed resins has been added to the Discussion section (page 14). Comment: The observed decrease in elastic modulus following thermal aging should be analyzed more thoroughly. Possible mechanisms such as network degradation or disruption of polymer cross-linking due to increased nanoparticle content should be hypothesized and supported with relevant references. Response: thank you for the comment, more details have been added in lines 437-448 6. Figures and Tables Comment: In the FTIR spectra, significant peaks should be clearly labeled, and the corresponding functional groups identified. This would improve the interpretability of the chemical bonding analysis. Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, we have labeled the main peaks of each spectra and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. However, these functional groups could not be mentioned within the figures due to limited space. Comment: Statistically significant differences between groups should be visually summarized using bar graphs with standard deviation/error bars and appropriate significance indicators (e.g., asterisks). This would allow readers to more quickly grasp the magnitude and relevance of the differences reported. Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. Bar graphs have been added to visually summarize the statistically significant differences between groups. These additions are now presented in Figures 6 and 7. Response to reviewer comments Recommendation: Major Revision The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents valuable findings. However, significant improvements are required in data presentation, methodological transparency, and clinical interpretation. I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered for indexing. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful evaluation and constructive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the relevance of our topic and the value of our findings. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to enhance the clarity and transparency of data presentation, provide more detailed descriptions of the methodology, and strengthen the discussion of the clinical implications of our results. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the overall quality and interpretability of the manuscript. 1. Abstract Comment: Although the abstract briefly presents the study's objective and key findings, it lacks numerical data on statistical significance (e.g., p-values). The absence of these values makes it difficult for readers to assess the strength and reliability of the reported outcomes. Response: Thank you for your comment. P values added to the abstract Comment: The results section in the abstract mentions the general effects of nanoparticle incorporation, yet it fails to highlight which specific group demonstrated superior performance or in which material these enhancements were more prominent. This weakens the interpretability and impact of the findings. Response: Thank you for your comment. The most superior performance material is added Comment: The final sentence of the abstract should be revised to clearly express the clinical relevance of the study. For instance, a conclusive statement such as “The ASIGA resin appears to be more suitable for clinical use” would provide a more concrete and impactful takeaway. Response: Thank you for your comment and recommendation. The statement was revised. 2. Introduction Comment: While the introduction demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic, it does not adequately emphasize the study’s novelty or specific contribution to the existing literature. The authors should clearly state what research gap this study fills or what unique question it attempts to answer that has not been addressed previously. Response: thank you for your comment. the research gap added at the end of introduction and the clarifying of novelty was highlighted Comment: The null hypotheses are technically stated but should be presented in a more concise and isolated format to enhance the logical clarity of the study's objectives and to ensure readers can easily identify the guiding assumptions of the research. Response : Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The null hypotheses have been revised to appear in a clearer and more concise format, presented in a separate paragraph within the Introduction section 3. Materials and Methods Comment: Although the sample dimensions, geometric shapes, and build orientations are partially described, further clarification is necessary to ensure the methodology is reproducible by other researchers. Detailed specifications are essential for standardization and transparency. Response: Thank you for your valuable observation. Additional details regarding the specimen dimensions, geometric configuration, and build orientation have been added to the Materials. Comment: The post-curing protocol is briefly mentioned; however, critical technical parameters such as the type of light source (LED/UV), wavelength, and total curing duration are missing. These details should be explicitly included, as they significantly influence the mechanical behavior of photopolymer resins. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, the recommended topic was done. Comment: The statistical software used for data analysis (e.g., SPSS, Jamovi) is not specified, nor is the exact strategy for data interpretation. Without this information, methodological transparency is compromised, and it becomes challenging to assess the validity of the statistical approach. Response: the name of the statistical software has been added Comment: Although the text mentions that a power analysis was performed, there is no information about the effect size used, or whether a post hoc power analysis was conducted. Including these details would enhance the statistical rigor and reliability of the findings. Response: we added all the information while writing statements related to sample size, which was used to entire for the sample size computation. 4. Results Comment: The results are presented only in tabular format, without any supporting graphical representations such as bar charts or error bars. The lack of visual data summaries makes it more difficult for readers to quickly interpret the findings and compare group performances. Response: Thank you for your response. In reference to Tables 2 and 5, two supplementary charts have been added (figure 6 and 7). Comment: FTIR and SEM analyses are discussed within the text, but the associated figures are lacking essential annotations, such as peak labels, magnification levels, and explanatory captions. These omissions hinder the reader’s ability to critically evaluate the microstructural and chemical characterization data. Response: Thank you for your comment. Main peaks have labeled of each spectrum and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. For SEM the given magnification for each image is provided along with figures captions as recommended. Comment: In the SEM section, terms like “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces” are briefly mentioned; however, the specific groups where these fracture patterns occurred are not clearly identified, nor are they visually indicated on the figures. This limits the clarity and scientific depth of the microstructural analysis. Response: Thank you for your comment, we considered your suggestion and extended the results part with more details about the “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces”. The corresponding (fig. 5) is modified accordingly where crack propagation and lamellar surfaces are identified and marked with arrows (see modified fig. 5) 5. Discussion Comment: The discussion follows the literature reasonably well, but the comparisons remain superficial in several areas. Each key finding should be more critically analyzed in light of previous studies, with proper referencing to enhance the scholarly depth of the interpretation. Response: thank you for your Comment, comparison with other studies have been added in lines 324-337 Comment: The discussion should more explicitly address which type of nanoparticle (ZNP or SNP) was more effective within which resin system (ASIGA or NextDent). Presenting these outcomes with clear material-specific insights would improve the applicability and specificity of the conclusions. Response : thank you for your valuable comments. Referral to NPs type effect was added to discussion Comment: Clinical implications are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should elaborate on how these materials might be implemented in practice—such as which types of dentures or patient scenarios would most benefit from the enhanced properties of these nanocomposite resins. Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. To address this point, a graph illustrating the clinical relevance and potential applications of the nanocomposite 3D-printed resins has been added to the Discussion section (page 14). Comment: The observed decrease in elastic modulus following thermal aging should be analyzed more thoroughly. Possible mechanisms such as network degradation or disruption of polymer cross-linking due to increased nanoparticle content should be hypothesized and supported with relevant references. Response: thank you for the comment, more details have been added in lines 437-448 6. Figures and Tables Comment: In the FTIR spectra, significant peaks should be clearly labeled, and the corresponding functional groups identified. This would improve the interpretability of the chemical bonding analysis. Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, we have labeled the main peaks of each spectra and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. However, these functional groups could not be mentioned within the figures due to limited space. Comment: Statistically significant differences between groups should be visually summarized using bar graphs with standard deviation/error bars and appropriate significance indicators (e.g., asterisks). This would allow readers to more quickly grasp the magnitude and relevance of the differences reported. Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. Bar graphs have been added to visually summarize the statistically significant differences between groups. These additions are now presented in Figures 6 and 7. Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 10 Sep 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 5 Version 4 (revision) 14 May 26 Version 3 (revision) 23 Mar 26 read read read Version 2 (revision) 23 Feb 26 read Version 1 10 Sep 25 read Büşra Tosun , Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Dentistry, Bolu, Turkey Elif Yalçın , Firat University, Elâzığ, Turkey EYYÜP ALTINTAŞ , Firat University, Elâzığ, Turkey Emel Uzunoglu Ozyurek , Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey Yomna M. Ibrahim , Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt Yasser Mohamed Aly , Beirut Arab University (Ringgold ID: 67025), Beirut, Lebanon Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Aly Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Apr 2026 | for Version 3 Yasser Mohamed Aly , Oral Rehabilitation Sciences, Beirut Arab University (Ringgold ID: 67025), Beirut, Beirut Governorate, Lebanon 0 Views copyright © 2026 Aly Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Review report The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Abstract: 1- The sample allocation and consistency are not clear in the method, particularly the exact subgrouping in relation to the total sample size (sample allocation must be mathematically consistent). 2- Half of the specimens were thermally aged; what about the other half being tested directly following the same grouping? This should be mentioned in a clear, straightforward way. 3- Results are written in a systematic way and are clear for the readers; however, the values reported for fracture resistance for 3D-printed resins are mentioned in MPa, which is not logical. It should be in newtons (N) rather than MPa. This should be clarified and corrected, as in the literature the range for fracture resistance in MPa is 70 to 200 MPa, not in the thousands. Introduction: The introduction effectively establishes the clinical importance of fracture resistance in denture teeth and appropriately presents additive manufacturing (3D printing) as a modern alternative to conventional fabrication methods. It also recognizes thermal aging as a critical factor influencing material performance and introduces zirconia and silica nanoparticles as potential reinforcement agents with beneficial mechanical effects. 1- The research gap is not stated clearly, particularly regarding what is currently present and the flaws that need to be enhanced or modified. 2- The first two paragraphs are nearly the same; rephrasing to avoid repetition is necessary. 3- Limited justification of study variables: The rationale for selecting specific nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials is not clearly explained. 4- The mechanical improvements associated with zirconia and silica nanoparticles are presented as universal outcomes without acknowledging that effects depend on factors such as concentration, dispersion, and material compatibility. 5- The third null hypothesis describing interaction effects is vague and unclear and should specify which variables are interacting. Methods: The methodology demonstrates a structured experimental approach but lacks critical details regarding sample size justification, group allocation clarity, nanoparticle dispersion validation, and specimen standardization, which may affect reproducibility and internal validity. Sample size estimation is not relevant to the current investigation. The authors have nearly two tested materials, then five testing parameters, each divided into two subgroups; ten specimens for each subgroup may not be adequate for generalization. Alternatively, the authors should mention similar studies regarding the number of groups and subgroups used for calculating their sample size. 1- Although 220 specimens were reported, the distribution of samples among subgroups (control vs. nanoparticle groups, thermocycled vs. non-thermocycled) is not clearly described, making the experimental design difficult to follow. 2- Lack of randomization description: The method does not state whether specimens were randomly assigned to groups, which raises concerns about selection bias. 3- No control for nanoparticle dispersion quality: The method states mixing for 30 minutes but does not include verification techniques such as ultrasonication, SEM, or particle distribution analysis (more details regarding the silanization process and the mixing technique employed are needed). 4- Critical parameters such as temperature range, dwell time, transfer time, and the number of cycles equivalent to clinical aging should be mentioned in this section. 5- The rationale for dividing specimens into thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups is implied. However, considering that all artificial teeth intraorally will be subjected to oral cavity changes, please clarify why some specimens were not thermally aged. Results: The Results section presents extensive and useful data but suffers from limited integration of mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, which reduces clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Discussion: The discussion mostly reports agreement with previous studies but does not critically analyze differences and rarely discusses methodological variations. 1- Several mechanisms—such as water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging effects—are repeatedly described, resulting in an overly lengthy discussion that could be streamlined for clarity and focus. 2- Insufficient consideration of confounding variables: Potential influences such as post-curing conditions, printing parameters, and degree of conversion are acknowledged but not fully controlled or quantitatively assessed, which may affect the interpretation of mechanical property changes. Why were prefabricated teeth used in the current study without even mentioning how they were fabricated or which manufacturing technique was used, especially since the reported values of prefabricated teeth are much higher than those of the two 3D-printed resin teeth groups? Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Prosthodontics, Material science related to my specialty. Digital and Implant dentistry I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 14 May 2026 Mohammed Gad, Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia The research topic is up to date, with a well-structured experimental framework and in vitro design. Many tests were performed, which reflect the effort placed into conducting such research. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Abstract: Comment 1 - The sample allocation and consistency are not clear in the method, particularly the exact subgrouping in relation to the total sample size (sample allocation must be mathematically consistent). Response: Thank you for your comment. sample allocations and distribution were revised and addressed in the abstract and methods as well as modified figure 1. Comment 2- Half of the specimens were thermally aged; what about the other half being tested directly following the same grouping? This should be mentioned in a clear, straightforward way. Response : Thank you for your comment. specimen distribution for TA and no TA was clarified and how the specimens aged or immediately tested were added to methods. Please, see highlighted parts in the thermal aging section in methodology. Comment 3- Results are written in a systematic way and are clear for the readers; however, the values reported for fracture resistance for 3D-printed resins are mentioned in MPa, which is not logical. It should be in newtons (N) rather than MPa. This should be clarified and corrected, as in the literature the range for fracture resistance in MPa is 70 to 200 MPa, not in the thousands. Response : Thank you for your careful review and suggestions. The unit per tested property was revised and modified through the text, tables, and figures. Introduction: The introduction effectively establishes the clinical importance of fracture resistance in denture teeth and appropriately presents additive manufacturing (3D printing) as a modern alternative to conventional fabrication methods. It also recognizes thermal aging as a critical factor influencing material performance and introduces zirconia and silica nanoparticles as potential reinforcement agents with beneficial mechanical effects. Comment 1- The research gap is not stated clearly, particularly regarding what is currently present and the flaws that need to be enhanced or modified. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The research gap has been revised to more clearly distinguish between what is currently available in literature and the specific limitations that require further investigation. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that previous studies have primarily evaluated nanoparticle incorporation in 3D-printed resins using simplified specimen geometries and without focusing on denture teeth applications or clinically relevant conditions. In addition, limited data is available regarding the effect of specific nanoparticles, such as ZNPs and SNPs, at different concentrations. Furthermore, direct comparisons with prefabricated denture teeth and the evaluation of material performance under simulated aging conditions remain insufficiently explored. These points have now been explicitly stated to better define the research gap and justify the aim of the present study. Please, see highlighted paragraph for research problems at the end of introduction Comment 2- The first two paragraphs are nearly the same; rephrasing to avoid repetition is necessary. Response : Thank you for your comment. The first two paragraphs have been carefully revised to eliminate repetition and improve clarity. While both paragraphs were retained to address distinct aspects the first focusing on denture teeth and the second on printing technology, the content has been refined to ensure smoother flow and better coherence between them. Comment 3- Limited justification of study variables: The rationale for selecting specific nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials is not clearly explained. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have clarified the rationale behind selecting the nanoparticle types, concentrations, and materials. In the revised manuscript, we explain that the chosen nanoparticles were selected based on published evidence demonstrating their ability to enhance the mechanical, physical, or antimicrobial properties of denture base resins. The concentration ranges were based on previous studies showing that low‑to‑moderate nanoparticle loading improves performance without causing agglomeration or negatively affecting printability. These explanations have now been added to strengthen the scientific basis of the study. Comment 4- The mechanical improvements associated with zirconia and silica nanoparticles are presented as universal outcomes without acknowledging that effects depend on factors such as concentration, dispersion, and material compatibility. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The introduction has been revised to clarify the mechanical effects of ZNPs and SNPs nanoparticles in terms of nanoparticle concentration, dispersion quality, surface treatment, and compatibility with the resin matrix. Comment 5- The third null hypothesis describing interaction effects is vague and unclear and should specify which variables are interacting. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the third null hypothesis required clarification. Accordingly, it has been revised to explicitly specify the interacting variables. The updated hypothesis now states that there is no significant interaction effect between nanoparticle type, nanoparticle concentration, and thermal aging condition on the fracture resistance and elastic modulus of the tested materials. This clarification has been incorporated into the manuscript to improve precision and readability. Methods: Comment : The methodology demonstrates a structured experimental approach but lacks critical details regarding sample size justification, group allocation clarity, nanoparticle dispersion validation, and specimen standardization, which may affect reproducibility and internal validity. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations, which have significantly strengthened the methodological quality of the study. In response, we have carefully revised the methodology section to address the raised concerns. Specifically, additional details have been provided regarding sample size considerations, clearer description of group allocation, clarification of nanoparticle dispersion procedures, and improved standardization of specimen preparation. Comment : Sample size estimation is not relevant to the current investigation. The authors have nearly two tested materials, then five testing parameters, each divided into two subgroups; ten specimens for each subgroup may not be adequate for generalization. Alternatively, the authors should mention similar studies regarding the number of groups and subgroups used for calculating their sample size. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding sample size estimation. In this study, the sample size was determined using data from a closely related published investigation that evaluated the fracture resistance of 3D‑printed denture teeth fabricated from the same resin system but without nanoparticle reinforcement. Because fracture resistance was also the primary outcome in our work, the mean and standard deviation reported in that study provided the most appropriate and directly comparable estimates of variability for calculating the minimum required sample size. Although the referenced study did not include nanoparticle‑modified groups, it examined the same material category, printing technology, and mechanical test, making it the closest available model for estimating variability in fracture resistance. This approach is commonly used in in‑vitro dental materials research when identical datasets are not available. The sample size calculation section has been revised and expanded to improve clarity and accuracy. Comment 1- Although 220 specimens were reported, the distribution of samples among subgroups (control vs. nanoparticle groups, thermocycled vs. non-thermocycled) is not clearly described, making the experimental design difficult to follow. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The distribution of specimens among the different subgroups has now been clearly clarified in the revised manuscript. Detailed descriptions of the grouping have been added to the methods sections. In addition, the study design figure and flowchart have been revised to visually illustrate the sample allocation and experimental workflow more clearly. Comment 2- Lack of randomization description: The method does not state whether specimens were randomly assigned to groups, which raises concerns about selection bias. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In the present study, specimen grouping was not based on random allocation but was predetermined according to nanoparticle type and concentration for each 3D-printed resin. Therefore, randomization was not applicable, as each group represented a specific experimental condition defined by the study design. All specimens were fabricated under standardized conditions to minimize variability and reduce potential bias. Comment 3- No control for nanoparticle dispersion quality: The method states mixing for 30 minutes but does not include verification techniques such as ultrasonication, SEM, or particle distribution analysis (more details regarding the silanization process and the mixing technique employed are needed). Response : Thank you for your comment. Regarding mixing procedures, we followed the previous studies adding NP to 3D printed resins. More details about adding NPs to fluid resins were added and supported with references. In addition to the details of silanization process. Please, see highlighted changes in the methodology. Comment 4- Critical parameters such as temperature range, dwell time, transfer time, and the number of cycles equivalent to clinical aging should be mentioned in this section. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. all details about TC protocols added and supported with references Comment 5- The rationale for dividing specimens into thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups is implied. However, considering that all artificial teeth intraorally will be subjected to oral cavity changes, please clarify why some specimens were not thermally aged. Response : Thank you for this important comment. The inclusion of both thermally aged and non-thermally aged groups was intentional to allow a baseline evaluation of the material properties prior to aging and to enable direct comparison with post-aging performance. The non-thermally aged specimens represent the initial mechanical behavior of the materials immediately after fabrication, while the thermally aged groups simulate the effects of intraoral temperature fluctuations over time. This approach is widely used in in vitro studies to assess the extent to which aging influences material degradation. By comparing both conditions, it becomes possible to determine not only the absolute performance of each group but also the magnitude of change induced by thermal cycling. This is particularly important in the present study to evaluate whether nanoparticle incorporation improves not only the initial mechanical properties but also their stability after simulated oral aging. Accordingly, this design provides a more comprehensive understanding of material performance and durability under both baseline and simulated clinical conditions. More discussion about this point is added. Results: Comment: The Results section presents extensive and useful data but suffers from limited integration of mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, which reduces clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. We would like to clarify that the microscopic (SEM) and spectroscopic (FTIR) assessments in this study were conducted as qualitative, supportive analyses rather than quantitative outcome measures. Accordingly, these findings were presented descriptively in the Results section to complement and contextualize the mechanical data, rather than to provide statistical integration across methods. The interaction between mechanical performance, microstructural features, and chemical characterization was addressed in the Discussion section, where the relationships among these findings were synthesized and interpreted. Discussion: The discussion mostly reports agreement with previous studies but does not critically analyze differences and rarely discusses methodological variations. Comment 1- Several mechanisms such as water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging effects are repeatedly described, resulting in an overly lengthy discussion that could be streamlined for clarity and focus. Response : Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the discussion section contained repeated descriptions of water sorption, hydrolytic degradation, and thermal aging mechanisms. In response, we have revised the section to streamline the narrative, remove redundancies, and present these mechanisms more concisely. The revised Discussion now focuses on synthesizing how these degradation processes relate to the mechanical, microscopic, and spectroscopic findings, improving clarity and interpretability of the main outcomes. Comment 2- Insufficient consideration of confounding variables: Potential influences such as post-curing conditions, printing parameters, and degree of conversion are acknowledged but not fully controlled or quantitatively assessed, which may affect the interpretation of mechanical property changes. Response : We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding potential confounding variables. In this study, factors such as post‑curing conditions and degree of conversion were addressed in the highlighted section in discussion, as the curing units used for the two resins differ in their manufacturer‑specified protocols. In contrast, parameters including layer thickness and printing orientation were fully standardized for both materials and therefore did not vary across groups. Because these conditions were controlled rather than treated as experimental variables, they were not considered confounding factors that could obscure the interpretation of the mechanical outcomes. Comment: Why were prefabricated teeth used in the current study without even mentioning how they were fabricated or which manufacturing technique was used, especially since the reported values of prefabricated teeth are much higher than those of the two 3D-printed resin teeth groups? Response : Thank you for this valuable comment. Prefabricated teeth were included in the present study as a reference group because they represent the most used materials in conventional denture fabrication and are considered a clinical benchmark for comparison. The primary objective was to compare the mechanical performance of 3D-printed denture teeth with materials currently used in routine clinical practice. Regarding their fabrication, prefabricated denture teeth are industrially manufactured under controlled conditions using highly cross-linked acrylic resins and optimized polymerization processes, which typically result in superior mechanical properties. This may explain the higher values observed compared to the 3D-printed groups. The manuscript has been revised to clarify the type and commercial source of the prefabricated teeth and to acknowledge their manufacturing characteristics as a factor influencing the results. View more View less Competing Interests none reply Respond Report a concern Aly YM. Peer Review Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r470325) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v3#referee-response-470325 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Ibrahim Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 08 Apr 2026 | for Version 3 Yomna M. Ibrahim , Alexandria University, Alexandria, Alexandria Governorate, Egypt 0 Views copyright © 2026 Ibrahim Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types of ceramic nanoparticles. While the study shows potential and the general concept is of scientific interest, there are several major methodological and reporting concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed before the work can be considered for indexing. Major points: A) Abstract 1. In the background section, an introductory sentence that defines the problem should be added before the aim. 2. The study groups are missing the prefabricated teeth group (n=20). This group is mentioned later in figure 1, but it should be mentioned in the abstract. B) Introduction The introduction is properly arranged with suitable references from the literature. C) Methods 1. The details of the silanization process should be mentioned along with the type and concentration of silane used. 2. The homogeneity of the mixture is doubtful as 30 minutes is not considered an enough time for dispersion of the particles. Also, the rpm of stirring is not mentioned along with the brand name of the magnetic stirrer. It is also recommended to use an ultrasonic bath to help disperse the particles which was not used in this study. 3. Please provide evidence that supports your choice of support removal to be after post-curing and not before. What did the manufacturers recommend concerning support removal? 4. A major flaw in this study is the calculation of elastic modulus using values obtained from fracture resistance and using an equation that calculates flexural modulus of bar shaped specimens. Please remove any mention of the elastic modulus calculations from all sections of the manuscript. 5. Please check the consistency of reporting the post-curing parameters as what is written in the methods section conflicts with that reported in figure 1. 6. The SEM magnification is mentioned as x2000 which is contradictory to the SEM figure legends mentioned later. Therefore, please omit the magnification and scale bar details mentioned in the text. Also, the SEM and TEM micrographs of the particles should be provided in the manuscript. 7. The FTIR data could have been used not only to report the bonds, but also to calculate the degree of conversion which would be a valuable addition to your study. D) Results The ND group was always reported first in all tests except the FTIR and SEM. Please ensure consistent reporting of the groups in all figures where ND is mentioned first followed by AS. E) Discussion On page 15, the last paragraph suggests different uses for the reinforced denture teeth which are not supported by evidence from this study. Using reinforced resin against natural teeth or implant supported restorations should be evaluated in terms of wear and abrasion resistance in order to draw such conclusions. Minor points: 1. A revision of the English language is required. 2. On page 5, the third paragraph of the methods section, the STL file preparation and printing procedure should be rewritten. 3. In figure 1, the label states "interim crown", while it should be "denture tooth". 4. In figure 2, the unit for fracture resistance should be (N) not (MPa) Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Dental Biomaterials, 3D printing, Nanotechnology, Materials testing I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 14 May 2026 Mohammed Gad, Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia The authors in this article address an interesting and timely topic, where the authors devised a method of improving fracture resistance of denture teeth through the addition of two types of ceramic nanoparticles. While the study shows potential and the general concept is of scientific interest, there are several major methodological and reporting concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed before the work can be considered for indexing. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Major points: A) Abstract Comment 1. In the background section, an introductory sentence that defines the problem should be added before the aim. Response : Thank you for your comment. The research problem was added to background before the aim of study. Comment 2. The study groups are missing the prefabricated teeth group (n=20). This group is mentioned later in figure 1, but it should be mentioned in the abstract. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Group allocation and distribution was revised in the abstract and methodology. B) Introduction The introduction is properly arranged with suitable references from the literature. Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. C) Methods Comment 1. The details of the silanization process should be mentioned along with the type and concentration of silane used. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have now added full details regarding the type of silane, its concentration, and the application protocol used in our study. Specifically, we have clarified the brand and chemical composition of the silane coupling agent, the concentration supplied by the manufacturer, the surface preparation steps prior to silane application. These details have been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the procedure. Comment 2. The homogeneity of the mixture is doubtful as 30 minutes is not considered enough time for dispersion of the particles. Also, the rpm of stirring is not mentioned along with the brand name of the magnetic stirrer. It is also recommended to use an ultrasonic bath to help disperse the particles which were not used in this study. Response : Thank you for your comment. We have revised the mixing protocol and more details added with cited references. Unfortunately, we don’t perform Ultrasonication we immediately again do shake for 1 hour before printing. But after reviewing the comments we found some articles recommended Ultrasonication and we added to study limitation and further recommendation. Please, see updated study limitations and further investigations Comment 3. Please provide evidence that supports your choice of support removal to be after post-curing and not before. What did the manufacturers recommend concerning support removal? Response : Thank you for this important comment. The timing of support removal remains controversial, with some studies suggesting removal before post-curing and others after. However, in the pre-cured “green state,” the resin is not fully polymerized. Therefore, manufacturers commonly recommend post-curing prior to support removal to ensure optimal mechanical properties and dimensional stability, as early removal may result in deformation and surface defects. Based on these recommendations, we followed the post‑curing‑first protocol to ensure dimensional accuracy, minimize surface defects, and maintain the mechanical integrity of the printed specimens. We have now clarified this rationale in the methodology as well as the details of post-curing steps sequence and conditions. Comment 4. A major flaw in this study is the calculation of elastic modulus using values obtained from fracture resistance and using an equation that calculates flexural modulus of bar shaped specimens. Please remove any mention of the elastic modulus calculations from all sections of the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendations. We totally agree with you regarding EM calculations. We followed previous study investigated elastic modulus for 3-unit bridge instead of bar and we cited this reference to support our method. The calculation method was added based on reviewer comment and suggestion in Version 2. After reviewing, all related statements related to elastic calculation were deleted and one reference supported this measurement method was cited. Also, our research team suggested deleting elastic modulus to overcome the methodology flaw and we are waiting for your suggestion regarding this point. Comment 5. Please check the consistency of reporting the post-curing parameters as what is written in the methods section conflicts with that reported in figure 1. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment 6. The SEM magnification is mentioned as x2000 which is contradictory to the SEM figure legends mentioned later. Therefore, please omit the magnification and scale bar details mentioned in the text. Also, the SEM and TEM micrographs of the particles should be provided in the manuscript. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The discrepancy between the SEM magnification reported in the text and that presented in the figure legends has been carefully reviewed. Also, the magnification and scale bar details are deleted from the text. Comment 7. The FTIR data could have been used not only to report the bonds, but also to calculate the degree of conversion which would be a valuable addition to your study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. In this study, only a subset of specimens was randomly selected for FTIR analysis; therefore, the degree of conversion test could not be conducted comprehensively, as not all specimens were evaluated. This limitation has been acknowledged and included in the recommendations for future investigations. D) Results Comment The ND group was always reported first in all tests except the FTIR and SEM. Please ensure consistent reporting of the groups in all figures where ND is mentioned first followed by AS. Response : Thank you for your observation. We appreciate the need for consistency in the presentation of groups across all figures. All figures have now been revised so that the ND group is consistently reported first, followed by the AS group, in alignment with the order used throughout the text. E) Discussion Comment On page 15, the last paragraph suggests different uses for the reinforced denture teeth which are not supported by evidence from this study. Using reinforced resin against natural teeth or implant supported restorations should be evaluated in terms of wear and abrasion resistance in order to draw such conclusions. Response : Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the suggested clinical applications in the last paragraph were not directly supported by the scope of our laboratory tests. The study did not evaluate wear behavior, abrasion resistance, or interactions with natural teeth or implant‑supported restorations. In response, we have revised the paragraph to remove unsupported implications and have limited the conclusions strictly to the laboratory findings. Additional studies assessing wear, antagonist contact, and long‑term functional stresses will be necessary before proposing such clinical uses. Minor points: Comment 1. A revision of the English language is required. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. Comment 2. On page 5, the third paragraph of the methods section, the STL file preparation and printing procedure should be rewritten. Response : Thank you for your comment. The STL file preparation and printing procedure in the third paragraph of the Methods section has been fully rewritten for clarity and improved methodological transparency. The revised text now provides a clearer description of the design workflow, STL export, slicing parameters, and printing steps to ensure consistency and reproducibility. Comment 3. In figure 1, the label states "interim crown", while it should be "denture tooth". Respons e: thank you for your careful review. Figure 1 has been completely revised. Comment 4. In figure 2, the unit for fracture resistance should be (N) not (MPa) Response : Thank you for your careful review. The figure was modified. View more View less Competing Interests Non-Financial Competing Interests' reply Respond Report a concern Ibrahim YM. Peer Review Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r473238) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v3#referee-response-473238 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Uzunoglu Ozyurek E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Apr 2026 | for Version 3 Emel Uzunoglu Ozyurek , Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2026 Uzunoglu Ozyurek E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission.This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth fabrication. The subject is potentially of interest. However, after carefully reviewing the manuscript, I do not consider it suitable for indexing in its current form. My concerns are not limited to presentation or language issues; they involve methodological clarity, analytical consistency, and interpretation of the findings. My first major concern is the lack of clarity in specimen allocation. The manuscript states that a total of 220 specimens were fabricated, including 20 prefabricated teeth, 100 ASIGA specimens, and 100 NextDent specimens, and that half of the prepared specimens (N=110) were thermocycled while the other half were not. At the same time, the manuscript describes five groups for each resin type with n=20 per group, which accounts for 100 specimens per printed resin. However, the exact subgroup distribution remains unclear, particularly regarding how the prefabricated group was allocated within the thermal aging scheme and comparison structure. In addition, the manuscript does not clearly report how many specimens were used for each outcome. It is left to the reader to infer that fracture resistance and elastic modulus were derived from the same loading procedure, but this should be stated explicitly and unambiguously. A second major concern is the statistical workflow, which is difficult to follow and appears internally inconsistent. In the Methods, the authors state that a two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the effect of thermal aging on fracture resistance, that one-way ANOVA was used to explore the effects of nanoparticle concentration, and that three-way ANOVA was used to examine interaction effects. However, thermal aging is already one of the main study factors and is also presented within the three-way ANOVA framework in the Results. As written, it is unclear which model represents the primary inferential analysis and why an additional t-test was required for an effect that should already be addressed within a multifactorial design. This lack of analytical clarity weakens confidence in the reported findings. Another important methodological concern relates to the calculation of elastic modulus. According to the Methods, elastic modulus was derived from the load-deflection curve using a formula that appears to be based on beam-type assumptions. However, the tested specimens were anatomically shaped denture teeth loaded on the occlusal surface, not standardized bar-shaped specimens typically used for modulus determination. Under such conditions, the validity and interpretation of the calculated elastic modulus are questionable. Since this is presented as one of the main outcomes, this issue directly affects the reliability of an important part of the study. The manuscript also contains unresolved inconsistencies in data presentation. One of the previous reviewers had already raised concern regarding the inconsistent reporting of fracture resistance/load units in N versus MPa. Although the authors responded to this point, the revised abstract still includes an apparent fracture resistance value reported in MPa instead of N. This indicates that the revision was not fully implemented and raises concern regarding the accuracy of the final reported data. There is also inconsistency between the description of the protocol and the graphical presentation. Figure 1 presents a generalized post-curing scheme, whereas the Methods describe different post-curing procedures for the two printing systems. This discrepancy should be corrected because it creates uncertainty about the actual protocol followed. With respect to interpretation, the study is appropriately framed around denture tooth fabrication rather than natural tooth behavior. However, the conclusions still seem broader than the design can support. A single-load fracture test combined with relatively short-term thermal aging may provide useful preliminary laboratory data, but it does not reproduce the full clinical service conditions of denture teeth, including fatigue loading, wear, water sorption, antagonist contact, and prosthesis-level functional stresses. Therefore, the conclusions should remain more cautious and restricted to laboratory material performance. In addition, the role of SEM and FTIR analyses is not sufficiently integrated into the overall argument. Although these methods are included, the manuscript does not clearly explain how many specimens were analyzed, whether the evaluation was qualitative or quantitative, or how these findings mechanistically support the reported mechanical outcomes. At present, these analyses appear supplementary rather than essential to the interpretation of the results. Finally, the manuscript still requires substantial language editing. Several sentences remain awkward, unclear, or grammatically problematic, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. These issues further reduce readability and make the analytical logic more difficult to follow. Overall, although the topic is potentially relevant, I am unable to support indexing of the manuscript in its current form. The concerns involve core aspects of study design, outcome validity, statistical analysis, consistency of revision, and interpretation, rather than minor editorial issues alone. For these reasons, I do not consider the manuscript suitable for indexing in its present version. Best regards Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Endodontics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 14 May 2026 Mohammed Gad, Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Dear Authors, Thank you for your submission. This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in digital prosthodontics, namely the mechanical performance of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed resins intended for denture tooth fabrication. The subject is potentially of interest. However, after carefully reviewing the manuscript, I do not consider it suitable for indexing in its current form. My concerns are not limited to presentation or language issues; they involve methodological clarity, analytical consistency, and interpretation of the findings. Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. All suggestions were carefully considered and have been fully addressed in the revised version. The feedback greatly contributed to improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the study. We believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewers’ insights have strengthened the manuscript and enhanced its contribution to the field. We are grateful for the time and expertise invested in reviewing our work. Comment : My first major concern is the lack of clarity in specimen allocation. The manuscript states that a total of 220 specimens were fabricated, including 20 prefabricated teeth, 100 ASIGA specimens, and 100 NextDent specimens, and that half of the prepared specimens (N=110) were thermocycled while the other half were not. At the same time, the manuscript describes five groups for each resin type with n=20 per group, which accounts for 100 specimens per printed resin. However, the exact subgroup distribution remains unclear, particularly regarding how the prefabricated group was allocated within the thermal aging scheme and comparison structure. In addition, the manuscript does not clearly report how many specimens were used for each outcome. It is left to the reader to infer that fracture resistance and elastic modulus were derived from the same loading procedure, but this should be stated explicitly and unambiguously. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The specimen’s distribution and allocation were revised and updated. Please, see highlighted in the abstract. Comment : A second major concern is the statistical workflow, which is difficult to follow and appears internally inconsistent. In the Methods, the authors state that a two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the effect of thermal aging on fracture resistance, that one-way ANOVA was used to explore the effects of nanoparticle concentration, and that three-way ANOVA was used to examine interaction effects. However, thermal aging is already one of the main study factors and is also presented within the three-way ANOVA framework in the Results. As written, it is unclear which model represents the primary inferential analysis and why an additional t-test was required for an effect that should already be addressed within a multifactorial design. This lack of analytical clarity weakens confidence in the reported findings. Response : Thank you for your comment. Reason of using t-test and one-way ANOVA along with three-way ANOVA is to study the effect of single factor while keeping the other factors fixed or constant Comment : Another important methodological concern relates to the calculation of elastic modulus. According to the Methods, elastic modulus was derived from the load-deflection curve using a formula that appears to be based on beam-type assumptions. However, the tested specimens were anatomically shaped denture teeth loaded on the occlusal surface, not standardized bar-shaped specimens typically used for modulus determination. Under such conditions, the validity and interpretation of the calculated elastic modulus are questionable. Since this is presented as one of the main outcomes, this issue directly affects the reliability of an important part of the study. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. We totally agree with you regarding the elastic modulus for bar-shape specimens. We calculated the specimen surface area and mentioned the dimension in methodology that was used to calculate the elastic modulus that generated during the fracture test. A previous study calculated the elastic modulus for anatomical crown (3-unit-bridge) using same methods we followed. Moreover, this part was modified based on reviewers’ recommendations. The reference was added to the method however this part was clarified at the end of discussion. Comment : The manuscript also contains unresolved inconsistencies in data presentation. One of the previous reviewers had already raised concern regarding the inconsistent reporting of fracture resistance/load units in N versus MPa. Although the authors responded to this point, the revised abstract still includes an apparent fracture resistance value reported in MPa instead of N. This indicates that the revision was not fully implemented and raises concern regarding the accuracy of the final reported data. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment. The manuscript has been carefully revised, and an error in the abstract regarding the reporting of fracture resistance (in N) has been corrected. In addition, the entire manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed to ensure consistency and accuracy in this regard. Comment : There is also inconsistency between the description of the protocol and the graphical presentation. Figure 1 presents a generalized post-curing scheme, whereas the Methods describe different post-curing procedures for the two printing systems. This discrepancy should be corrected because it creates uncertainty about the actual protocol followed. Response : Thank you for your valuable comment and recommendation. Figure 1 has been completely revised. We hope that the updated figure presents the workflow more clearly and in an easily understandable flowchart format Comment : With respect to interpretation, the study is appropriately framed around denture tooth fabrication rather than natural tooth behavior. However, the conclusions still seem broader than the design can support. A single-load fracture test combined with relatively short-term thermal aging may provide useful preliminary laboratory data, but it does not reproduce the full clinical service conditions of denture teeth, including fatigue loading, wear, water sorption, antagonist contact, and prosthesis-level functional stresses. Therefore, the conclusions should remain more cautious and restricted to laboratory material performance. Response : Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree that the experimental design, which involved a single-load fracture test and short-term thermal aging, reflects laboratory conditions and does not fully replicate the complex intraoral environment. Accordingly, the conclusions have been revised to be more cautious and limited to the interpretation of laboratory-based material performance. In addition, the limitations of the study have been clearly emphasized to acknowledge these factors and to avoid overgeneralization of the findings to clinical scenarios. Comment : In addition, the role of SEM and FTIR analyses is not sufficiently integrated into the overall argument. Although these methods are included, the manuscript does not clearly explain how many specimens were analyzed, whether the evaluation was qualitative or quantitative, or how these findings mechanistically support the reported mechanical outcomes. At present, these analyses appear supplementary rather than essential to the interpretation of the results. Response : Thank you for this insightful comment. SEM and FTIR analyses were included as complementary techniques to provide mechanistic insight into the observed mechanical behavior rather than as primary quantitative assessment methods. In the present study, a limited number of specimens were randomly selected from each group for SEM and FTIR evaluation; therefore, these analyses were conducted on a qualitative basis. SEM observations were used to examine surface morphology, fracture patterns, and nanoparticle dispersion, while FTIR analysis was employed to confirm chemical interactions and assess polymerization characteristics. Accordingly, their role was to support and help interpret the mechanical findings rather than to serve as standalone outcome measures. This clarification has been added to the methodology and discussion sections to better integrate these analyses within the overall study framework. Comment : Finally, the manuscript still requires substantial language editing. Several sentences remain awkward, unclear, or grammatically problematic, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. These issues further reduce readability and make the analytical logic more difficult to follow. Respons e: Thank you for your suggestions. The manuscript was thoroughly revised and edited. View more View less Competing Interests None reply Respond Report a concern Uzunoglu Ozyurek E. Peer Review Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197538.r470324) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v3#referee-response-470324 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 ALTINTAŞ E et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 04 Mar 2026 | for Version 2 Elif Yalçın , Firat University, Elâzığ, Elâzığ, Turkey EYYÜP ALTINTAŞ , Firat University, Elâzığ, Elâzığ, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2026 ALTINTAŞ E et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Referee Report This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two 3D-printed denture tooth resins (NextDent and ASIGA). Mechanical performance was assessed through fracture resistance and elastic modulus testing before and after thermal aging (5000 cycles). SEM and FTIR analyses were additionally conducted to explore fracture behavior and potential chemical interactions within the reinforced systems. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly within the expanding field of additive manufacturing in prosthodontics and nanoparticle reinforcement strategies. The factorial design, relatively large sample size (n = 220), and inclusion of both mechanical and microstructural analyses represent strengths of the study. Previous literature supports the importance of post-processing conditions and nanoparticle dispersion in influencing mechanical performance of photopolymerized dental resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1; Tahayeri et al., 2018 - Ref 2). However, several issues related to clarity of reporting, statistical interpretation, and methodological transparency must be addressed to ensure scientific robustness and reproducibility. A primary concern relates to the inconsistency in reporting fracture resistance units. In some sections, fracture resistance is presented in Newton (N), whereas in others it is reported in MPa. Since the described mechanical protocol involves compressive loading using a universal testing machine, clarification is required as to whether the analyzed parameter represents fracture load (N) or calculated stress (MPa). If stress values were derived, the method of stress calculation—including area assumptions—must be explicitly described. Consistent unit reporting is essential for transparency and scientific validity, and this issue should be resolved. Regarding statistical interpretation, the three-way ANOVA indicates that the interaction between thermal aging and material type is statistically significant, while interactions involving nanoparticle concentration are not consistently significant. Nonetheless, the manuscript emphasizes enhancement associated with nanoparticle incorporation in generalized terms. Interpretation should more closely reflect the statistical outcomes, distinguishing between significant main effects and non-significant interaction effects. The rejection of null hypotheses should be aligned precisely with the statistical evidence. The substantial reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging warrants deeper discussion. While thermal aging is expected to affect mechanical properties, the magnitude of the reported decline is notable. The authors are encouraged to confirm the calculation method for elastic modulus and expand discussion of potential degradation mechanisms. It is well established that post-polymerization conditions significantly influence degree of conversion and mechanical performance in photopolymerized resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1), and the differing post-curing protocols between materials may represent a confounding variable that should be discussed more explicitly. An inconsistency between the narrative discussion and tabulated results should also be corrected. The manuscript indicates that the elastic modulus of prefabricated teeth did not significantly decrease after aging; however, the corresponding table suggests a statistically significant reduction. Alignment between textual interpretation and statistical data is essential. Although many methodological parameters are reported, additional detail would enhance reproducibility. Clear explanation of how elastic modulus was determined, clarification of fracture resistance calculation, and expanded reporting of printing parameters (e.g., exposure settings, curing conditions) would improve transparency. Providing a concise table summarizing subgroup allocation—including aging distribution—would further improve clarity. Finally, while summary statistics are provided, the underlying raw data are not included. Sharing individual specimen values as supplementary material would strengthen transparency and allow independent verification of the statistical analyses, consistent with principles of open scientific reporting. Overall, this study contributes valuable data to the field of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed denture materials. The experimental framework is generally appropriate, and the inclusion of SEM and FTIR analyses adds depth. The identified concerns primarily relate to clarity, statistical alignment, and methodological reporting rather than fundamental flaws in study design. In conclusion, the manuscript is potentially suitable for indexing following revision. Clarification of unit consistency improved statistical interpretation, correction of textual inconsistencies, and enhanced methodological transparency are required to ensure that the work is scientifically sound and fully reproducible. Recommendation: Approved with Reservations. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Revilla‐León M, Özcan M: Additive Manufacturing Technologies Used for Processing Polymers: Current Status and Potential Application in Prosthetic Dentistry. Journal of Prosthodontics . 2019; 28 (2): 146-158 Publisher Full Text 2. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin A, Bompolaki D, et al.: 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dental Materials . 2018; 34 (2): 192-200 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Prosthodontics; Digital Dentistry; Dental Biomaterials We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Mohammed Gad, Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Response to reviewer 2 This manuscript evaluates the effect of zirconium dioxide (ZNPs) and silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SNPs), incorporated at two concentrations (0.5 wt.% and 1 wt.%), into two 3D-printed denture tooth resins (NextDent and ASIGA). Mechanical performance was assessed through fracture resistance and elastic modulus testing before and after thermal aging (5000 cycles). SEM and FTIR analyses were additionally conducted to explore fracture behavior and potential chemical interactions within the reinforced systems. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly within the expanding field of additive manufacturing in prosthodontics and nanoparticle reinforcement strategies. The factorial design, relatively large sample size (n = 220), and inclusion of both mechanical and microstructural analyses represent strengths of the study. Previous literature supports the importance of post-processing conditions and nanoparticle dispersion in influencing mechanical performance of photopolymerized dental resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1; Tahayeri et al., 2018 - Ref 2). However, several issues related to clarity of reporting, statistical interpretation, and methodological transparency must be addressed to ensure scientific robustness and reproducibility. Response: Thank you for this constructive and encouraging comment. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the relevance of the topic and the strengths of the study design. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of reporting, statistical presentation, and methodological transparency. The statistical analysis and presentation of results have also been rechecked and clarified, and the tables have been revised to ensure consistent reporting and interpretation of statistical groupings. These revisions were implemented to enhance the scientific rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of the study. Comment: A primary concern relates to the inconsistency in reporting fracture resistance units. In some sections, fracture resistance is presented in Newton (N), whereas in others it is reported in MPa. Since the described mechanical protocol involves compressive loading using a universal testing machine, clarification is required as to whether the analyzed parameter represents fracture load (N) or calculated stress (MPa). If stress values were derived, the method of stress calculation—including area assumptions—must be explicitly described. Consistent unit reporting is essential for transparency and scientific validity, and this issue should be resolved. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that consistent reporting of mechanical test outcomes is essential for clarity and scientific transparency. In the present study, the parameter evaluated was fracture load, which was recorded directly from the universal testing machine (Instron) as the maximum load at failure and expressed in Newtons (N) while the elastic modulus was calculated from the load–deflection data generated by the universal testing machine. Please, see highlighted added statements in methodology. Comment: Regarding statistical interpretation, the three-way ANOVA indicates that the interaction between thermal aging and material type is statistically significant, while interactions involving nanoparticle concentration are not consistently significant. Nonetheless, the manuscript emphasizes enhancement associated with nanoparticle incorporation in generalized terms. Interpretation should more closely reflect the statistical outcomes, distinguishing between significant main effects and non-significant interaction effects. The rejection of null hypotheses should be aligned precisely with the statistical evidence. Response: Thank you for this valuable comment regarding the interpretation of the statistical findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the alignment between statistical outcomes and their interpretation in the manuscript. The three-way ANOVA results were reviewed again to ensure accurate interpretation, particularly with respect to the interaction effects. Furthermore, the null hypotheses were revised and modified as well as the acceptance or rejection of the null hypotheses has been aligned explicitly with the statistical evidence obtained from the ANOVA analysis. Comment: The substantial reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging warrants deeper discussion. While thermal aging is expected to affect mechanical properties, the magnitude of the reported decline is notable. The authors are encouraged to confirm the calculation method for elastic modulus and expand discussion of potential degradation mechanisms. It is well established that post-polymerization conditions significantly influence degree of conversion and mechanical performance in photopolymerized resins (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019 - Ref 1), and the differing post-curing protocols between materials may represent a confounding variable that should be discussed more explicitly. Response : Thank you for this detailed and insightful comment. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the notable reduction in elastic modulus observed in the ND control group after thermal aging. In response, the calculation method for elastic modulus was carefully rechecked and confirmed to be correct, derived from the linear portion of the load–deflection curve generated by the universal testing machine (Instron) according to standard three-point bending calculations. No errors in the measurement or analysis were identified. Additionally, the Discussion section has been expanded to address potential degradation mechanisms. The observed reduction in elastic modulus may be attributed to water sorption, plasticization of the polymer matrix, hydrolytic degradation, and weakening of intermolecular bonds within the resin network, all of which are known to compromise stiffness over time. We also explicitly discuss the role of post-polymerization conditions, including differences in light intensity, exposure duration, wavelength, and temperature, which can affect the degree of conversion and cross-link density. Suboptimal post-curing can result in lower monomer conversion and higher residual monomer content, which may exacerbate the reduction in mechanical properties during thermal aging. These additions provide a more comprehensive understanding of both intrinsic material degradation and potential confounding factors affecting the ND control group, in line with previously reported findings (Revilla-León & Özcan, 2019; Tahayeri et al., 2018; Stansbury & Idacavage, 2016). Comment: An inconsistency between the narrative discussion and tabulated results should also be corrected. The manuscript indicates that the elastic modulus of prefabricated teeth did not significantly decrease after aging; however, the corresponding table suggests a statistically significant reduction. Alignment between textual interpretation and statistical data is essential. Response: Thank you for this careful observation. We appreciate the reviewer for identifying this inconsistency. After re-examining the results and the corresponding table, we confirm that the elastic modulus of the prefabricated teeth showed a statistically significant reduction after thermal aging, as indicated in the tabulated data. The statement corrected in the Discussion. Comment: Although many methodological parameters are reported, additional detail would enhance reproducibility. Clear explanation of how elastic modulus was determined, clarification of fracture resistance calculation, and expanded reporting of printing parameters (e.g., exposure settings, curing conditions) would improve transparency. Providing a concise table summarizing subgroup allocation—including aging distribution—would further improve clarity. Response : thank you for your valuable comment. Measurement details were added to the methods section as well as more details about printing parameters. Regarding subgroups allocations, this was clarified in the methods sections. Comment: Finally, while summary statistics are provided, the underlying raw data are not included. Sharing individual specimen values as supplementary material would strengthen transparency and allow independent verification of the statistical analyses, consistent with principles of open scientific reporting. Response: thank you for your comment and recommendation. Raw data uploaded as a supplementary file Comment: Overall, this study contributes valuable data to the field of nanoparticle-reinforced 3D-printed denture materials. The experimental framework is generally appropriate, and the inclusion of SEM and FTIR analyses adds depth. The identified concerns primarily relate to clarity, statistical alignment, and methodological reporting rather than fundamental flaws in study design. Response: Thank you for this positive and constructive assessment of our work. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity of presentation, consistency in statistical reporting, and methodological transparency. Specifically, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation, and testing procedures. In addition, the statistical analyses and the presentation of results have been rechecked, and the tables and corresponding descriptions in the Results section have been revised to ensure proper alignment and clarity. These revisions were made to enhance the overall readability, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of the study. Comment: In conclusion, the manuscript is potentially suitable for indexing following revision. Clarification of unit consistency improved statistical interpretation, correction of textual inconsistencies, and enhanced methodological transparency are required to ensure that the work is scientifically sound and fully reproducible. Response: Thank you for this constructive evaluation and for considering the manuscript potentially suitable for indexing following revision. We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendations aimed at improving the scientific clarity and reproducibility of the work. In response, the manuscript has been carefully revised to address the points raised. Unit consistency has been corrected throughout the manuscript, particularly regarding the reporting of mechanical properties, to ensure uniformity and clarity. The statistical analyses and their interpretation have been rechecked, and the presentation of results in the text and tables has been revised to eliminate inconsistencies. Additionally, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer and more detailed descriptions of specimen preparation, nanoparticle incorporation procedures, and testing protocols, thereby enhancing methodological transparency and reproducibility. We believe that these revisions have strengthened the scientific rigor and overall clarity of the manuscript. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Yalçın E and ALTINTAŞ E. Peer Review Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190325.r462252) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v2#referee-response-462252 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Tosun B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Sep 2025 | for Version 1 Büşra Tosun , Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Dentistry, Bolu, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2025 Tosun B. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1. Abstract Although the abstract briefly presents the study's objective and key findings, it lacks numerical data on statistical significance (e.g., p-values). The absence of these values makes it difficult for readers to assess the strength and reliability of the reported outcomes. The results section in the abstract mentions the general effects of nanoparticle incorporation, yet it fails to highlight which specific group demonstrated superior performance or in which material these enhancements were more prominent. This weakens the interpretability and impact of the findings. The final sentence of the abstract should be revised to clearly express the clinical relevance of the study. For instance, a conclusive statement such as “The ASIGA resin appears to be more suitable for clinical use” would provide a more concrete and impactful takeaway. 2. Introduction While the introduction demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic, it does not adequately emphasize the study’s novelty or specific contribution to the existing literature. The authors should clearly state what research gap this study fills or what unique question it attempts to answer that has not been addressed previously. The null hypotheses are technically stated but should be presented in a more concise and isolated format to enhance the logical clarity of the study's objectives and to ensure readers can easily identify the guiding assumptions of the research. 3. Materials and Methods Although the sample dimensions, geometric shapes, and build orientations are partially described, further clarification is necessary to ensure the methodology is reproducible by other researchers. Detailed specifications are essential for standardization and transparency. The post-curing protocol is briefly mentioned; however, critical technical parameters such as the type of light source (LED/UV), wavelength, and total curing duration are missing. These details should be explicitly included, as they significantly influence the mechanical behavior of photopolymer resins. The statistical software used for the data analysis (e.g., SPSS, Jamovi) is not specified, nor is the exact strategy for data interpretation. Without this information, methodological transparency is compromised, and it becomes challenging to assess the validity of the statistical approach. Although the text mentions that a power analysis was performed, there is no information about the effect size used, or whether a post hoc power analysis was conducted. Including these details would enhance the statistical rigor and reliability of the findings. 4. Results The results are presented only in tabular format, without any supporting graphical representations such as bar charts or error bars. The lack of visual data summaries makes it more difficult for readers to quickly interpret the findings and compare group performances. FTIR and SEM analyses are discussed within the text, but the associated figures are lacking essential annotations, such as peak labels, magnification levels, and explanatory captions. These omissions hinder the reader’s ability to critically evaluate the microstructural and chemical characterization data. In the SEM section, terms like “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces” are briefly mentioned; however, the specific groups where these fracture patterns occurred are not clearly identified, nor are they visually indicated on the figures. This limits the clarity and scientific depth of the microstructural analysis. 5. Discussion The discussion follows the literature reasonably well, but the comparisons remain superficial in several areas. Each key finding should be more critically analyzed in light of previous studies, with proper referencing to enhance the scholarly depth of the interpretation. The discussion should more explicitly address which type of nanoparticle (ZNP or SNP) was more effective within which resin system (ASIGA or NextDent). Presenting these outcomes with clear material-specific insights would improve the applicability and specificity of the conclusions. Clinical implications are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should elaborate on how these materials might be implemented in practice—such as which types of dentures or patient scenarios would most benefit from the enhanced properties of these nanocomposite resins. The observed decrease in elastic modulus following thermal aging should be analyzed more thoroughly. Possible mechanisms such as network degradation or disruption of polymer cross-linking due to increased nanoparticle content should be hypothesized and supported with relevant references. 6. Figures and Tables In the FTIR spectra, significant peaks should be clearly labeled, and the corresponding functional groups identified. This would improve the interpretability of the chemical bonding analysis. Statistically significant differences between groups should be visually summarized using bar graphs with standard deviation/error bars and appropriate significance indicators (e.g., asterisks). This would allow readers to more quickly grasp the magnitude and relevance of the differences reported. Recommendation: Major Revision The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents valuable findings. However, significant improvements are required in data presentation, methodological transparency, and clinical interpretation. I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered for indexing. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Prosthodontics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Feb 2026 Mohammed Gad, Substitutive Dental Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University College of Dentistry, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Response to reviewer comments Recommendation: Major Revision The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents valuable findings. However, significant improvements are required in data presentation, methodological transparency, and clinical interpretation. I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered for indexing. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful evaluation and constructive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the relevance of our topic and the value of our findings. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to enhance the clarity and transparency of data presentation, provide more detailed descriptions of the methodology, and strengthen the discussion of the clinical implications of our results. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the overall quality and interpretability of the manuscript. 1. Abstract Comment: Although the abstract briefly presents the study's objective and key findings, it lacks numerical data on statistical significance (e.g., p-values). The absence of these values makes it difficult for readers to assess the strength and reliability of the reported outcomes. Response: Thank you for your comment. P values added to the abstract Comment: The results section in the abstract mentions the general effects of nanoparticle incorporation, yet it fails to highlight which specific group demonstrated superior performance or in which material these enhancements were more prominent. This weakens the interpretability and impact of the findings. Response: Thank you for your comment. The most superior performance material is added Comment: The final sentence of the abstract should be revised to clearly express the clinical relevance of the study. For instance, a conclusive statement such as “The ASIGA resin appears to be more suitable for clinical use” would provide a more concrete and impactful takeaway. Response: Thank you for your comment and recommendation. The statement was revised. 2. Introduction Comment: While the introduction demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic, it does not adequately emphasize the study’s novelty or specific contribution to the existing literature. The authors should clearly state what research gap this study fills or what unique question it attempts to answer that has not been addressed previously. Response: thank you for your comment. the research gap added at the end of introduction and the clarifying of novelty was highlighted Comment: The null hypotheses are technically stated but should be presented in a more concise and isolated format to enhance the logical clarity of the study's objectives and to ensure readers can easily identify the guiding assumptions of the research. Response : Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The null hypotheses have been revised to appear in a clearer and more concise format, presented in a separate paragraph within the Introduction section 3. Materials and Methods Comment: Although the sample dimensions, geometric shapes, and build orientations are partially described, further clarification is necessary to ensure the methodology is reproducible by other researchers. Detailed specifications are essential for standardization and transparency. Response: Thank you for your valuable observation. Additional details regarding the specimen dimensions, geometric configuration, and build orientation have been added to the Materials. Comment: The post-curing protocol is briefly mentioned; however, critical technical parameters such as the type of light source (LED/UV), wavelength, and total curing duration are missing. These details should be explicitly included, as they significantly influence the mechanical behavior of photopolymer resins. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, the recommended topic was done. Comment: The statistical software used for data analysis (e.g., SPSS, Jamovi) is not specified, nor is the exact strategy for data interpretation. Without this information, methodological transparency is compromised, and it becomes challenging to assess the validity of the statistical approach. Response: the name of the statistical software has been added Comment: Although the text mentions that a power analysis was performed, there is no information about the effect size used, or whether a post hoc power analysis was conducted. Including these details would enhance the statistical rigor and reliability of the findings. Response: we added all the information while writing statements related to sample size, which was used to entire for the sample size computation. 4. Results Comment: The results are presented only in tabular format, without any supporting graphical representations such as bar charts or error bars. The lack of visual data summaries makes it more difficult for readers to quickly interpret the findings and compare group performances. Response: Thank you for your response. In reference to Tables 2 and 5, two supplementary charts have been added (figure 6 and 7). Comment: FTIR and SEM analyses are discussed within the text, but the associated figures are lacking essential annotations, such as peak labels, magnification levels, and explanatory captions. These omissions hinder the reader’s ability to critically evaluate the microstructural and chemical characterization data. Response: Thank you for your comment. Main peaks have labeled of each spectrum and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. For SEM the given magnification for each image is provided along with figures captions as recommended. Comment: In the SEM section, terms like “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces” are briefly mentioned; however, the specific groups where these fracture patterns occurred are not clearly identified, nor are they visually indicated on the figures. This limits the clarity and scientific depth of the microstructural analysis. Response: Thank you for your comment, we considered your suggestion and extended the results part with more details about the “crack propagation” and “lamellar surfaces”. The corresponding (fig. 5) is modified accordingly where crack propagation and lamellar surfaces are identified and marked with arrows (see modified fig. 5) 5. Discussion Comment: The discussion follows the literature reasonably well, but the comparisons remain superficial in several areas. Each key finding should be more critically analyzed in light of previous studies, with proper referencing to enhance the scholarly depth of the interpretation. Response: thank you for your Comment, comparison with other studies have been added in lines 324-337 Comment: The discussion should more explicitly address which type of nanoparticle (ZNP or SNP) was more effective within which resin system (ASIGA or NextDent). Presenting these outcomes with clear material-specific insights would improve the applicability and specificity of the conclusions. Response : thank you for your valuable comments. Referral to NPs type effect was added to discussion Comment: Clinical implications are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should elaborate on how these materials might be implemented in practice—such as which types of dentures or patient scenarios would most benefit from the enhanced properties of these nanocomposite resins. Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. To address this point, a graph illustrating the clinical relevance and potential applications of the nanocomposite 3D-printed resins has been added to the Discussion section (page 14). Comment: The observed decrease in elastic modulus following thermal aging should be analyzed more thoroughly. Possible mechanisms such as network degradation or disruption of polymer cross-linking due to increased nanoparticle content should be hypothesized and supported with relevant references. Response: thank you for the comment, more details have been added in lines 437-448 6. Figures and Tables Comment: In the FTIR spectra, significant peaks should be clearly labeled, and the corresponding functional groups identified. This would improve the interpretability of the chemical bonding analysis. Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, we have labeled the main peaks of each spectra and corresponding groups are discussed in the relevant text. However, these functional groups could not be mentioned within the figures due to limited space. Comment: Statistically significant differences between groups should be visually summarized using bar graphs with standard deviation/error bars and appropriate significance indicators (e.g., asterisks). This would allow readers to more quickly grasp the magnitude and relevance of the differences reported. Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. Bar graphs have been added to visually summarize the statistically significant differences between groups. These additions are now presented in Figures 6 and 7. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare no conflicts of interest reply Respond Report a concern Tosun B. Peer Review Report For: Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated for teeth fabrication: An in vitro analysis before and after thermal aging [version 4; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.184057.r414809) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v1#referee-response-414809 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v4&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Y. Alshaikhnasser F et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v4/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894", templates : { twitter : "Fracture resistance of nanocomposite 3D-printed resins designated.... Y. Alshaikhnasser F et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-894/v4" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/166989/198857") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "198857"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "473239": 0, "473238": 10, "473237": 0, "473236": 0, "473240": 0, "462247": 0, "462255": 0, "462254": 0, "462253": 0, "462252": 17, "462251": 0, "462250": 0, "462249": 0, "462248": 0, "470327": 0, "470326": 0, "418103": 0, "470325": 58, "470324": 11, "470323": 0, "470322": 0, "470321": 0, "461361": 0, "462256": 0, "418110": 0, "418111": 0, "418108": 0, "418109": 0, "418106": 0, "470330": 0, "418107": 0, "470329": 0, "418104": 0, "470328": 0, "418105": 0, "465351": 0, "465350": 0, "465349": 0, "465348": 0, "465347": 0, "418112": 0, "471759": 0, "471758": 0, "471757": 0, "471756": 0, "465356": 0, "471755": 0, "465355": 0, "471754": 0, "465354": 0, "465353": 0, "465352": 0, "414806": 0, "414807": 0, "414805": 0, "471763": 0, "471762": 0, "471761": 0, "471760": 0, "414814": 0, "414812": 0, "414813": 0, "414810": 0, "414811": 0, "414808": 0, "414809": 29, "427111": 0, "484847": 0, "485103": 0, "484846": 0, "485102": 0, "485101": 0, "485100": 0, "485099": 0, "485098": 0, "485107": 0, "484850": 0, "485106": 0, "484849": 0, "485105": 0, "484848": 0, "485104": 0, "470010": 0, "470009": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "22edf6bd-6aa2-457c-8929-5ea6835b7d9b"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });