Next Article in Journal
A Preliminary Study Investigating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Dental Education in the Caribbean: A Student’s Perspective
Next Article in Special Issue
Onset of MRONJ in Breast Cancer Patients after Switching from Low to High Dose of Bone Modifying Agents Due to Bone Metastases Development: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study
Previous Article in Journal
Foreword to the Special Issue on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Imaging in Dentistry
Previous Article in Special Issue
Histopathological Comparative Analysis between Syndromic and Non-Syndromic Odontogenic Keratocysts: A Retrospective Study
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Intraoral Sialadenoma Papilliferum: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature with Emphasis on Clinical and Histopathological Diagnostic Features

Oral 2022, 2(3), 242-250; https://doi.org/10.3390/oral2030023
by Rita Antonelli 1, Oslei Paes de Almeida 2, Ronell Bologna-Molina 3 and Marco Meleti 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Oral 2022, 2(3), 242-250; https://doi.org/10.3390/oral2030023
Submission received: 17 August 2022 / Revised: 1 September 2022 / Accepted: 6 September 2022 / Published: 16 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exclusive Papers of the Editorial Board Members of Oral)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is a comprehensive review of the literature of rare, intraoral salivary gland tumor- sialadenoma papilliferum. The study highlights the clinical and histopathological diagnostic aspects of sialadenoma papilliferum. The article is well written and interesting. However, there are some minor issues that need to be considered.

-          The article is written in two styles: British and American English

-          In line 126- should be cytokeratin 19

-          In figure 1- should be “patient”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your kind and constructive comments, which have contributed to significantly improve our manuscript.

We can provide a revised version of the manuscript together to answer point-by-point to the review comments.

Q: The article is written in two styles: British and American English

A: We have replaced the British word "Tumour" with American word "tumor" in the lines 136-153-217.

Q: In line 126- should be cytokeratin 19

A: Line 126 error has been corrected

Q: In figure 1- should be “patient”

A: Error in Figure 1 has been corrected, as requested. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your kind and constructive comments, which have contributed to significantly improve our manuscript.

We can provide a revised version of the manuscript together to answer point-by-point to the review comments.

1) We have standardized the font size in the abstract.

2) We have eliminated the double spaces appearing in the manuscript.

3) We have adapted the chronological list of case reports included in Table 1 with the list of references consistent with their first appearance in the text.

4) A paragraph has been added in discussion (lines 244-251) in order to emphasize the unique features of intramural SP and the differential diagnosis of SP with other lesions to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop