The article is overall well-written and provides an interesting look at the efficacy of calcium silicate and glass ionomer cement for indirect pulp capping and an analysis of restorative assessment criteria. The methodology of the study is very sound and allows an accurate comparison of efficacy and analysis of restorative assessment criteria, however I believe a few small points in the methods and discussion should be addressed - as indicated below.

Abstract, title, references: The title of the article provides a clear and precise understanding on the purpose of the article and key features of the article. The abstract is extensive and provides a descriptive explanation on the aims of the study, the method, results and conclusion. Referencing is well used throughout the article, notably to explain the biological mechanisms of the results, their significance, as well as provide results from other papers. The references used are mostly recent and relevant sources.

Introduction/background: The introduction provides an extensive explanation on the background knowledge of the paper, including explaining results of previous papers. By explaining the 'holes' in background knowledge, the aims of the paper are justified. The research questions are clearly expressed and fragmented into numbered segments for clarity.

Methodology: The process of subject selection was clearly provided, allowing repeatability of the study design. The methodology follows the same outline as the study for the one year results, which adds validity to their use. The variables used are appropriate for the research question and add a valid measurement to the study. The blind nature of the examiners to the endodontic material and date of radiographs helped limit potential for bias, however, explanation on the selection and calibration of the examiners would help promote repeatability to the study. Further explanation on the selection and calibration process should be explained.

Data and results: The results were clearly presented in appropriate tables and figures. Table 2 provided an extensive description of the teeth that failed to maintain vitality, which assisted in analysis of clinical factors that may have impacted the outcome. A comprehensive list of all the teeth restored was not included in the results and should be displayed to add completeness to results. The text clearly and succinctly describes the tables, results, and the clinical significance of values. However, the results does not explain what a practically significant result would be, which makes the clinical application of the results difficult to understand.

Discussion and conclusion: The discussion provides a direct and explicit discussion of the results. This is expanded by an appropriate interpretation of the findings and a comparison to a study of the one year success. Limitations of the study are well-justified and recommendations on future studies are appropriate. The proposed biological mechanisms of the study are well referenced and add to the justification of the results. The article provides a significant contribution to the ongoing evidence on the material choice for indirect pulp capping treatment of reversible pulpitis.