Calcium Phosphate Cement Promotes Odontoblastic Differentiation of Dental Pulp Cells In Vitro and In Vivo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting and deals with fascinating concepts. The english language, however, must be revised and improved in order to improve readability and grammar.

 

Please rephrase with correct English grammar the following sections.

Lines 14-16

Calcium phosphate cement (CPC), a hydroxyapatite-like bone cement, has been highlighted the vast potential in osseointegration by regulating cell cycle progression and promoting osteoblastic differentiation.

Line 20

Colony-forming units was  20 used to assess the antibacterial activity.

Lines 58 to 69 must be rephrased, sentence structure is heavy and needs to be easier to read.

Line 97 typing error

Line 103 Paragraph 2.2.3 needs to be rewritten as it is too schematic and unclear to the reader.

In conclusion sections, please state clearly that there basically were no differences between CPC and MTA application, as shown from the results. Please also state the need for human in-vivo trials evaluating the efficacy of CPC used as a pulp capping material.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewing the manuscript “Calcium Phosphate Cement Promotes Odontoblastic Differentiation of Dental Pulp Cells in vitro and in vivo” submitted to “Coatings” for publication revealed this work interesting. In this experimental study, authors have investigated the effects of CPC on odontoblastic differentiation of DPCs in vitro and in vivo. This is a well-designed study and; it needs some improvements; there are a few suggestions that authors may consider to improve it further:

The use of English language is reasonable, however, there are a number of punctuation and grammatical errors; that should be corrected and rephrased using academic English for a better flow of text for reader. I could see a few in abstract and introduction too. Authors should proofread to eradicate typos and grammatical errors.

Authors should define all the abbreviations at their first appearance in the text as many abbreviations use are not defined.

The abstract is structured and seems OK however, the results subsection is deficit; please include some of the key findings in the results.

In the introduction, authors should justify how this manuscript fit within the scope of the journal coatings?

Methods and results sections are described in well details and clear to follow.

All the figures are well-presented and explained in the text.

The discussion is weak section that needs further improvement; only a limited literature has been included in the context. Discussion should be expanded a bit more comparing findings with the previous studies. Not enough discussion about the limitations of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Many thanks for revising this manuscript.