This is the feedback I got today. Whatever changes need to be made please feel free to do so.
In feedback, they suggested a different title – again change whatever needs to be changed in order to make it a literature review paper and add chart(s).
-I’m not seeing any significant changes, the paper continues to summarize various points about composites while lacking data to support its points about the stated restorative materials. This is not evidence-based dentistry, just talking points.
-The last paragraph from the Introduction appears to be the only obvious addition from the previous rough draft. If you are going to limit the paper to only one-two surface composite restorations then it should be an in-depth paper about the topic. The paper discusses/repeats various topics broadly without any significant detail.
-“This literature review will provide a comprehensive analysis of the fracture resistance of bulk fill, bulk fill flowable, fiber-reinforced, conventional resin composite, and different viscosity direct restorative materials in posterior teeth following endodontic treatment.” We should expect to see studies listed or tables, charts, or graphs-at least some kind of numbers comparing force in Newtons or elastic modulus in Pascals. There is no mention of how fracture resistance is measured in general or how any of these studies were designed to measure fracture resistance. Were all posterior teeth used? Only premolars? Only molars? None of the methods or designs are mentioned. I Googled “fracture resistance dental composites” and the first few papers all discussed their design-how they were measuring the resistance and what the numerical results were.