Ossifying Fibroma of the Maxilla: A Case Report and Literature Update

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

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 diagnostic methods and treatment strategies that should be taken into account in case of treating recurrent ossifying fibroma (OF) of the left anterior maxilla. It briefly illustrates the significant correlation between clinical, radiographic and histologic assessments and the importance of a detailed study of the lesion’s features which will help in planning the right treatment. The Discussion is well-supported with adequate relevant literature. The Conclusion further states that the treatment of OF largely depends on the experience and preference of the operating surgeon as well as the facilities at their disposal and highlights the importance of a regular, long-term follow-up of OF lesions after surgical removal.

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: 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: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments:

·       The 2^nd last sentence of the Discussion that is “Surgeons must therefore plan their approach for each case individually and carefully consider the lesion’s features (size, site, aggressiveness etc.) as well as…2^nd surgery should the tumor recurs” does not make sense. Therefore, this sentence should be checked by the author.

·       The full form of the abbreviation “OS” has not been mentioned in the text part of the manuscript.

·       Words like “canine”, “recurred” are misspelled in the text section of the manuscript.

·       Articles are missing in several places throughout the text section of the manuscript.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report presents a rare case of recurrent ossifying fibroma (OF) of the left anterior maxillary alveolar region in a 28-year-old female patient with a medical history of OF in the left maxillary antrum that had been surgically removed 2 years earlier. The definitive diagnosis requires a combined assessment of clinical, microscopic, and radiological features which confirmed the presence of OF in the patient. This study highlights that the treatment of OF usually depends on the size, location, aggressiveness of tumor and the degree of involvement of surrounding structures. Depending on the location and tumor’s aggressiveness, hemi-maxillectomy was performed which eventually improved the patient outcomes. This study provides valuable insights into the careful study of the lesion’s features before planning the treatment and recommends the need for a regular, long-term follow-up of OF lesions after surgical removal.

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