Comments on abstract, title, references

The manuscript assessed “Chemico-physical and mechanical evaluation of three calcium silicate-based pulp capping materials”. This research is under the scope of this journal, the topic is relevant for readers and this research deals with potentially significant knowledge to the field. The paper makes a comparison of the chemico-physical properties and apatite-forming ability of three calcium silicate-based materials considered for pulp capping.

The number of in vitro parameters studied is very large, but the manuscript unfortunately has some shortcomings.

Aim:

• This was a comparative study of selected properties of three calcium silicate-based pulp capping materials.

The Title:

• It is clear but the authors maybe change for "Physical and mechanical evaluation of ".

The references:

-The most relevante references was include in these manuscript. It was used a recente references and they were referenced correctely in the text. Also, it was included the key studies in this article.

• Check reference’s format in the manuscript, and in the references, In the placement of "et al." there is a divergence in the criteria for its application. In the reference, Ramos 2016 places after 5, in the remaining references with more than 6.

• The authors demonstrate knowledge about the topic and make an adequate framework for the topic and the magazine that was submitted. However, it needs to be a little more in-depth for the topics to be tested in this study, so I suggest reading the reviews of Pariokh 2018 and 2018: Parirokh, M .; Torabinejad, M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review - Part I: chemical, physical, and antibacterial properties. J Endod 2010, 36, 16-27, doi: 10.1016 / j.joen.2009.09.006. Parirokh, M .; Torabinejad, M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review - Part III: Clinical applications, drawbacks, and mechanism of action. J Endod 2010, 36, 400-413, doi: S0099-2399 (09) 00769-9 [pii] 10.1016 / j.joen.2009.09.009. And Parirokh, M .; Torabinejad, M .; Dummer, P.M.H. Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview - part I: vital pulp therapy. Int Endod J 2018, 51, 177-205, doi: 10.1111 / iej.12841.

• The question is not clearly defined. Therefore in order to be able to respond to the objectives, the authors should define primary and secondary objectives.

• The introduction of a new material always justifies new studies to assess their behaviour. In this way, the authors can justify the performance of this study. However, this material (Tech Biosealer capping (TBC)) that the authors refer to as new is referenced from 2013, so it is not new !!

• The authors studied biointeractivity, porosity, water sorption, solubility, compressive strength, lap shear strength and apatite forming ability for this 3 materials. These properties are appropriate to evaluate the physical-chemical comparison between the 3 materials. The studies used are valid and reliable studies. There is sufficient detail for the application of the study and the methodology of other studies already published in the literature is reported.

• However: The authors do not mention how the sample was calculated. Did authors performed power analysis to evaluate if this sample size was appropriate?

The presentation of the results is appropriately: - however, figure 2 has little resolution and it is not clear what authors want to highlight. Better the image and the caption, being able to mark important points in the image.

• the presentation of the decimal numbers is not well, the presentation is in two modes (.005 and 0.05) and must be standardized.

• The results are presented individually and with the statistical differences identified.

The authors begin the discussion by explaining the importance of testing the properties of materials, however this theme was not addressed in the introduction and should be.

The authors should start the discussion by describing the main findings of the study and comparing them with the literature, so they should review it.

The authors do not address the study's limitations, nor do they refer to future perspectives for it.

Since no objectives were defined in the introduction or null hypothesis, the reformulated conclusion

The conclusion supports the results, however it does not clarify the readers of the true contribution of the study in relation to the tested materials.