Direct Pulp Capping: Which is the Most Effective Biomaterial? A Retrospective Clinical Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors
Thank you very much for this beautiful work.
The comparison of classical MTA ProRoot with Biodentine is not new as such. Very nice however are the relatively large case numbers
I would have liked to have worked out the differences between the two materials more precisely.
Which cases failed with which material? In the discussion a lot of time was spent to critically illuminate the processes of the pulp capping. Very little discussion took place about the differences between the different materials.
A more detailed analysis of the reasons for failure would be nice.
Otherwise, the study is very sound

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear authors
Thank you very much for this beautiful work.
The comparison of classical MTA ProRoot with Biodentine is not new as such. Very nice however are the relatively large case numbers

The authors acknowledge the reviewer’s comments.

I would have liked to have worked out the differences between the two materials more precisely.

R: The alterations were made in the manuscript.

 

Which cases failed with which material?

R: This information was added to the manuscript.

 

In the discussion, a lot of time was spent to critically illuminate the processes of the pulp capping. Very little discussion took place about the differences between the different materials.
A more detailed analysis of the reasons for failure would be nice.

R: The reviewer's suggestion was considered. Considerations on the clinical procedures of direct pulp capping were reviewed and the differences between the materials used were discussed. The alterations were made in the manuscript.

Otherwise, the study is very sound

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: Direct pulp capping: which is the most effective biomaterial? A retrospective clinical study

 

Interesting project. In this research project retrospective clinical study with 20 patients performed which results show supports of pulp capping therapies with Biodentine™ and WhiteProRoot®MTA.

 

Corrections:

English need proof reading. Never use “we” in scientific paper. Please specify where consumables purchased such as: WhiteProRoot®MTA and a tricalcium silicate, Biodentine Table 1: is this your table? If not you need to reference it. Result section – line 2: 45% does not make sense? Reword/correct the sentence:

“clinical study included patients aged 18 to 55 years, most of them aged 18 to 25 years, with a percentage of 45%. “.

Result: line 3: what do you mean by 30%? The sentence does not make sense: “The age group of 46 to 55 years was the second-highest, with a percentage of 30%.” Entire result and discussion have serious English problem and most of places mentioning % does not make sense and the readers do not get your point. You need to revise this paper. Conclusion: success rate of what? 95% of what? “In the present study, success rates were 95%, which are high and like those for 100% MTA-based cement.

Overall, interesting paper but need serious English proof reading specifically in result and discussion section. I accept after major correction.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Interesting project. In this research project retrospective clinical study with 20 patients performed which results show supports of pulp capping therapies with Biodentine™ and WhiteProRoot®MTA.

The authors acknowledge the reviewer’s comments.

 

Corrections:

English need proof reading.

R: The paper was reviewed by an English native international certified revisor (Proofreading Declaration attached).

 

Never use “we” in scientific paper.

R: The paper was reviewed by an English native international certified revisor (Proofreading Declaration attached).

 

Please specify where consumables purchased such as: WhiteProRoot®MTA and a tricalcium silicate, Biodentine

R: The materials used were purchased by the hospital unit where the patients were treated. The hospital unit is part of the Portuguese health system network, where consumables are purchased from Portuguese commercial companies registered with the drug regulatory authority (Infarmed).

Some information about the materials used in this study is given in the following table.

 

Material	Lot	Expiration date	Trade mark
Biodentine™	LOT B05574 LOT B08323 LOT B10221 LOT B12265 LOT B14676 LOT B13380	2014-04 2014-11 2015-09 2016-04 2016-07 2016-09	Septodont
Life®	LOT 4989034 LOT 4954566 LOT 4974378 LOT 5598117	2015-09 2015-09 2015-09 2017-06	Kerr
WhiteProRoot® MTA	LOT 12002493 LOT 201404-01 LOT 13102907 LOT 13102906	2015/05 2016-08 2016-11 2016-11	Denstply
Ketac Fil	LOT 496854	2015-12	3M ESPE
Corsodyl Care	LOT 000438	2013-09	GlaxoSmithKline
Sodium hypochlorite	LOT 031112	2014/11	DentaFlux

 

 

Table 1: is this your table? If not you need to reference it.

R: The table was made by the authors.

 

Result section – line 2: 45% does not make sense? Reword/correct the sentence:“clinical study included patients aged 18 to 55 years, most of them aged 18 to 25 years, with a percentage of 45%. “.

R: The alteration was made in the manuscript.

Result: line 3: what do you mean by 30%? The sentence does not make sense: “The age group of 46 to 55 years was the second-highest, with a percentage of 30%.”

R: 30% of total patients. The alteration was made in the manuscript.

 

Entire result and discussion have serious English problem and most of places mentioning % does not make sense and the readers do not get your point. You need to revise this paper.

R: The paper was reviewed by an English native.

 

Conclusion: success rate of what? 95% of what? “In the present study, success rates were 95%, which are high and like those for 100% MTA-based cement.

R: “… success rates of tricalcium silicate cement therapies were 95%, which are high and like those for 100% MTA-based cement.” The alteration was made in the manuscript.

Overall, interesting paper but need serious English proof reading specifically in result and discussion section. I accept after major correction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for corrections.

All corrections done as requested/suggested. 

I accept in the current format.