This article aimed to assess the in vitro response of human primary osteoblasts to Biodentine by three different cell parameters in comparison to MTA Angelus. The authors presented a study with an important clinical application and properly discussed the findings as well as the limitations of the assays. In general, the paper is well written, just a few suggestions were made, being the more relevant the observation about the statistics. The Title is informative and relevant, and the references were recent and relevant. The abstract is clear and represents the study findings.

MAJOR POINTS: Data and results: The text was well presented and is clear about the findings. However, regarding statistics, considering that the authors used the Shapiro-Wilk test and the data had a normal distribution, it is assumed that the use of the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests was with non-parametric data. Following this observation, a specific graphic for non-parametric data, the box-plot, which does not consider mean and standard deviation might be appropriate. The legend in Figure 1 specifies that the letters A, B and C represent the results for each test, and for this reason, it could be interesting to place those letters in the figure.

MINOR PONTS: Introduction: The complete texts of the abbreviations XTT, NRU and CVDE could be added in the Abstract. The introduction was focused on Biodentine, and because of this, brief information about MTA and the performed tests might increase the curiosity of the reader. The abbreviation for Biodentine, “BD”, is written in the 1st paragraph in the “Introduction” section (page 1); however, later in the document the extended text, “Biodentine”, was used. Methodology: In general, the methodology is well described and reproducible. The variables were properly measured, and the study methods were valid and reliable. In the 1st paragraph of "Sample preparation" section (page 2) the commercial product was written as "Angelus" instead of "MTA Angelus". Table 1 showed a grey-highlighted second row, which seems like a highlighted "(Angelus PR Brazil)". Discussion: In the 3rd paragraph, 10th line of “Discussion” section (Page 5) describes the behavior of the controls, which was already described in the Results section. The conclusion is adequate and supported by the study findings. The suggestions and limitations were properly highlighted.