Odontogenic Maxillary Sinusitis: The Interface and Collaboration between Rhinologists and Dentists

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the review article is well framed to convey the message.

The work is well-structured, clear and detailed and has appropriate literature to support the central idea of the paper.

I would recommend its publication in current form, but it should go through english editing.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your review of our paper. We appreciate your recommendation for publication and have reflected on your recommendation for English language editing. As three native English speakers, we have thoroughly reviewed the article for grammar and phrasing and are confident it will meet the English language requirements. Once again, we thank you for your input.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to congratulate you on the topic of this paper, it is indeed a highly debated issue in literature. However, there are a few concerns I would like to address.

First of all, being a review paper, the method of selecting the cited articles should be detailed, as well as the number of articles included in this review.

Second, considering this Journal is addressing specialists in the field of Otorhinolaryngology, Introduction section could be a bit more complex. I consider the paragraph 'The paranasal sinuses are comprised of four paired pneumatised areas within the 28 facial and skull base bones, each named for the bones in which they arise (maxillary, ethmoid, frontal and sphenoid). They communicate with the nasal cavity via small ostia and are lined by pseudostratified ciliated respiratory epithelium, allowing air exchange and drainage of secreted mucous into the nasal cavity. The maxillary sinus is closely related to the maxillary tooth roots, which commonly reach the floor of the maxillary sinus and allow a route of spread for infection from the oral cavity into the maxillary sinus [3, 7]. Subsequent involvement of the osteomeatal complex, the common drainage pathway of the anterior ethmoid, maxillary and frontal sinuses, may lead to involvement of other sinuses [8].' is rather simplistic for this type of specialised paper.

Regarding the paragraph 'This paper provides a review of the current literature on the aetiology, presentation, and management of OMS, as well as our experience in managing this condition' from the Abstract, I consider it would be useful if you provided more details regarding your experience with the  556 cases of MMA, and if you could especially discuss the cases with odontogenic sinusitis.

Finally, in the Conclusions section it would be of benefit if you could provide some general recommendations for the readers, who hope to get some answers to the question this review addresses. For example, your recommendation from Disussions section ' It is our opinion however, that odontogenic sinusitis which does not respond to appropriate medical management warrants effective endoscopic surgical intervention' and other findings regarding the benefit of modified medial maxillectomy could be transposed into certain conclusions.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 2 for their thorough review and input regarding this manuscript. We will address each of their comments below:

1. Method of selecting articles for inclusion: We have taken on board your comments and have included a modified PRISMA flowchart and edited our Introduction to include a summary of our search strategy, results, and rationale for article inclusion in this review (see last Paragraph of “Introduction”). We believe this will provide a contextual framework for the included articles in this review. (see lines 46 – 51)
2. Complexity of Introduction: We appreciate your suggestion for a more nuanced discussion of sinonasal and odontogenic anatomy, and have modified the Introduction to largely reflect this. However, given that this is a review article on a multi-disciplinary topic, in composing the manuscript we were cognisant of the fact that non-Otorhinolaryngologists will be reading this review and were hesitant to delve to deep into a complex discussion of the anatomy. We believe the edits subsequent to your review achieve an appropriate balance between nuance and clarity for both Otorhinolaryngologists and Dentists.
3. Discussion of 556 MMA cases: We agree that it would be ideal to discuss further our experience and outcomes of the Odontogenic related MMA cases. However, this work is currently unpublished and part of a PhD project. Nonetheless, we have edited our discussion (see 4^th paragraph of “Management” section) to discuss broadly the outcomes of our experience with the 17 OMS specific MMA cases. (see lines 190-196)
4. Recommendations: We agree with your suggestion to make clear recommendations to the issues we raise throughout the paper regarding the management of OMS. Subsequently, we have created a separate section and transposed our discussion into certain conclusions that we believe has made the paper clearer in answering some key issues raised. (see line 233)

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations for a good-quality paper.