Authors' response

We thank Mr Cann for his letter and interest in our article.

The purpose of our review was to make the reader aware of the development and availability of a multitude of materials from the calcium silicate family. To that end, it is indisputable that a class of resin-based hybrid calcium silicate materials has indeed been developed in the recent past and we have highlighted some of these developments up until the point of submission of this article. It is important to note that we qualify TheraCal as a ‘Hybrid’ cement, implying a component other than traditional calcium silicate. Camilleri has recognized TheraCal as a calcium silicate-based material,1^,2 as have other authors.3^,4 There is general consensus on this aspect in peer reviewed literature and our review has not made new assumptions. Analysis of TheraCal has revealed that its main cementitious phase is a Portland cement, which includes tricalcium aluminate together with tricalcium and dicalcium silicate phases.2 The approach to improve setting and handling properties has driven the development of calcium silicate materials, both in academia and industry, and our paper recognizes the hybrid calcium silicate-resin material. As this approach has been distinct from previously developed methods, it merits inclusion, though under a different generation of the calcium silicate family. The review does not focus on MTA-like materials alone and it is important to acknowledge the existence of a wider calcium silicate material family.