A Case of Unusual Size Sialolith in the Wharton’s Duct

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Very good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Comments:

·       The headings “Introduction” and “Case Report” should be added.

·       The subheadings “Patient History” and “Diagnosis” should be introduced under the section of Clinical Data of Case Report.

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Very good

Comments: The case description is adequate. The Discussion section aptly analyses the occurrence factors, signs and symptoms, diagnostic methods and the treatment of sialolithiasis with the help of relevant literature. An accurate diagnosis by mandibular transverse occlusal film and a precise assessment of the size or location of the sialolith are essential to determine the surgical procedure. The Conclusion states that the removal of sialoliths by transoral sialolithotomy is the preferred surgical procedure with a high success rate and very few complications. Figures are also briefly explained.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Excellent

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: The 2^nd sentence “Submandibular gland… accumulated by bacteria.” under the subheading of “The Causes of the Formation of Huge Submandibular Gland Duct Stones” of the Discussion does not make sense. Hence, this sentence should be rephrased.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report presents a case of a 19-year-old female with swelling, pain and discomfort in the left sublingual area for more than 10 years. Medical history, examination, clinical manifestations and imaging findings diagnose the presence of huge stone or sialolith of 22mm×15mm in size in the left submandibular gland and chronic submandibular gland inflammation on the left. Clinical diagnosis by mandibular transverse occlusal film and the surgical removal of sialolith by transoral sialolithotomy lead to the disappearance of obstruction symptoms and promote the restoration of normal salivary gland secretions.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team