All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear authors,
I confirm that the revision version has addressed all the queries raised by the reviewers. The manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Dear Authors
the manuscript has been improved after addressing the reviewer's comments.
Now the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Best regards
The design is appropriate and well designed.
The findings are useful to share in literature
The manuscript is suitable for publication as it is in its current form.
Dear author,
Please address all the queries/ suggestions raised by the reviewers.
The article is clear with good englishcovered sufficient backgrpund ,well structured,contains relevant results and conclusion
the study is a original research with defined questions and meaningful the method involved detailed investigations.
the current paper will have good contribution for the literature all the data have been provided.
the manuscript has rich scientific value and it will defiantly contribute for the literature
Dear Authors
the topic of the manuscript is interesting but some changes are necessary before taking it into account for publication. Here are my suggestions to improve it:
- The introduction section resumes the existing knowledge regarding this topic but at the end of this section, Authors should underline the rationale of the study.
- In the central section, Authors should better clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the articles included and excluded from the study.
- Line 9 of the introduction : correct "sipported" with "supported" ;
- Line 74 they wrote Siirona is written with 2 i. Please check;
- In the materials and methods they say that they tried to have CBCTs of males and females in equal quantities and that they also tried to have them of the same age. Please specify the range of age.
- Furthermore, after having established the inclusion/exclusion criteria, you do not report any reference to the initial sample and how much they were excluded.
- Line 119 describes the basal angle as point 3 of Fig, 2 but it seems like the sellar angle. Furthermore, posteriorly you take the posterior point of the sella turcica instead of S and anteriorly the line does not intersect the Nasion N but a lower point (without references)
- Line 128, you declare that the width of the palate has been obtained and I quote "Palate width (PW): the distance between the cement-enamel junction of the left and right first molars from the coronal plane ." However, if in the inclusion/exclusion criteria you have not excluded those who have undergone orthodontics, this value can vary, and even a lot, depending on whether or not a person has undergone orthodontic treatment.
- 7 to 27 references are older than 10 years. Please update them.
- Table 1 has the writing not in the center. Furthermore, as I said above, it does not report the age range of patient enrollment. Furthermore, the unit of measurement of the data reported is missing (years, months..)
- Table 2 also needs to be laid out better. It's all off-center. Furthermore, explanations of many acronyms are missing. And it would be appropriate to put them in order of explanation following the order of appearance in the table.
- The units of measurement are also missing... only one angle shows the degree symbol °, while all the others are missing
- Table 3 is also completely spread out and the units of measurement are missing and explanations of some acronyms are missing and the order of appearance should be respected to make reading more pleasant.
- Table 4 same problems as the other tables and a bit of the trend in all the remaining tables.
- Fig 1 is out of focus.
- In figure 2, the red plane that should go from Nasion to the posterior sella turcica does not pass through Nasion.
- Figure 3 shows how the AM junction is a highly arbitrary point to detect
- The discussion section appears well organized. Please add a specific sentence that clarifies the results obtained in the first part of the discussion.
- The conclusion should reinforce in light of the discussions.
- Add the strenght of the study.
Best regards
.
It is well organized but some changes are necessary as explained above.
The finding are important to the field
None
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the accuracy of morphometry of skull base and palate in gender discrimination using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning and to assess the accuracy of the results among a sample of the Arab population
In conclusion the authors should make a conclusion about how many percent the accuracy of morphometry of skull base and palate in gender discrimination using CBCT.
For inclusion criteria, how about age range and dentition condition (example: missing teeth, that can affect the measurement)?
The authors should explain more detail about exclusion criteria, for example: tooth condition, history of medical disease, and patients with crown and bridge that affect the measurements.
In conclusion the authors should make a specific conclusion about how many percent the accuracy of morphometry of skull base and palate in gender discrimination using CBCT.
-
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.