Late-Onset of Keratocysts in De Novo Mutation c.1347+1G>A on Intron 9 PTCH1- (NBCCS) – Diagnosis and Therapy

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Good

Comments: In the Title, “diagnostic” must be replaced with “diagnosis”.

Abstract & Keywords

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

A: 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

Tools and Methods

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

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion highlights the diagnosis and treatment of keratocystic odontogenic tumors (KCOT), providing relevant literature. It further points out that the surgical procedure enables the combination of minimized morbidity and a low recurrence of the keratocysts. Lastly, the Conclusion states the treatment options for syndromic and non-syndromic cases of KCOT.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: 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: 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: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: There are few issues in the manuscript which are as follows:

·     In the Introduction, under Case Report, the 1^st sentence, “Nevoid Basal Nevus syndrome” must be written as “Basal Cell Nevus Syndrome.

·       In Abstract, and Case Presentation, “47-year” must be rewritten as “47-year-old”.

·       Under Discussion, and Case Presentation, the subheading “Diagnostic” must be written as “Diagnosis”.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report accounts for the diagnosis and therapy for late-onset keratocysts in de novo mutation c.1347+1G>A on Intron 9 PTCH-(NBCCS). This further adds that early diagnosis is required to prevent the late prognosis of the disease. This case presents an asymptomatic BCNS in a 47-year-old woman who was diagnosed with de-novo-mutation of the PTCH1 gene followed by odontogenic keratocysts as the late-onset symptoms.

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