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.
The manuscript is clearly written, methodologically sound, and fully compliant with PeerJ standards. The revisions have improved clarity, and the CBCT protocol and analyses are well detailed. The findings are valid, adequately supported by the data, and appropriately interpreted. I recommend acceptance in its current form.
The revised manuscript is clearly written in professional and unambiguous English. The authors have substantially improved the clarity and coherence of the text following the previous review. The introduction provides sufficient background and appropriately situates the study within the existing literature. The structure of the article follows standard scientific conventions, and all figures, tables, and raw data are presented clearly and of an acceptable technical quality. The manuscript is self-contained and reports all results relevant to the stated objectives. I find the reporting fully compliant with PeerJ standards.
The study design is appropriate for the stated aims and follows the required ethical and technical standards. The methodology is described clearly, the CBCT protocol is well-detailed, and the calibration process ensures reproducibility. Overall, the experimental approach is sound and meets the journal’s expectations.
The data provided are complete, well analyzed, and support the authors’ conclusions. Statistical methods are suitable, and the findings remain consistent with the presented results. The conclusions are accurate and do not extend beyond the evidence. The study’s results can be considered reliable.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** When preparing your next revision, please ensure that your manuscript is reviewed either by a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter, or by a professional editing service. PeerJ offers language editing services; if you are interested, you may contact us at [email protected] for pricing details. Kindly include your manuscript number and title in your inquiry. – PeerJ Staff
Language and style require refinement. Typographical errors and formatting inconsistencies should be corrected (for instance, “informed consent” begins with a lowercase letter). Overuse of identical conjunctions should be avoided; two consecutive paragraphs start with “Despite”, where alternative connectors would improve readability. Punctuation issues should be addressed, and ambiguous or awkward sentences revised for clarity.
In the Materials and Methods section, inclusion and exclusion criteria should be listed separately and described in greater detail. The sentence “Patients were positioned in the Frankfort Horizontal plane prior to imaging” suggests a prospective design, whereas the study is retrospective. This should be clarified as part of the routine imaging protocol of the clinic.
The findings presented are valuable and generally consistent with previous research; however, several aspects require refinement to strengthen their validity. The reference base relies heavily on older sources, and integrating more recent studies would provide stronger support for the conclusions. In particular, the literature on mandibular canal variations has advanced considerably, and key recent works such as Sözen & Akpınar (2025), which examined the relationship between accessory mandibular canals and mandibular canal dimensions, should be incorporated. Furthermore, the clinical implications of these variations, especially their potential to increase neurovascular complications, should be discussed in greater detail.
Ethnic and racial anatomical differences are acknowledged but not explored in depth. A more comprehensive analysis of how mandibular canal morphology differs across populations would enhance the generalizability of the results. Similarly, the discussion of the mental foramen could be strengthened by incorporating current evidence, such as the detailed radiographic analysis of bilateral symmetry reported by Algabri et al. (2025).
Finally, while the measurements are systematic and reproducible, language inconsistencies, typographical errors, and some ambiguities in the Methods (e.g., the retrospective design being described in prospective terms) may affect the clarity of interpretation. Addressing these issues, together with refining the inclusion/exclusion criteria, would improve the robustness of the study and increase the clinical relevance of its findings.
The manuscript is overall a well-designed and comprehensive study; however, several aspects require further development before it can be considered for publication.
Abstract
Include concise quantitative results (e.g., percentages or p-values).
Clearly emphasize the study’s originality as one of the first comprehensive CBCT-based mappings in a Middle Eastern/Saudi population.
Strengthen the clinical relevance statement in the final sentence.
Introduction
The phrase “Despite the clinical significance…” appears twice and should be revised to avoid redundancy.
The research gap (lack of population-specific 3D mapping) should be stated more explicitly.
Simplify sentences that are overloaded with citations for smoother flow.
Materials and Methods
The sample size formula is given, but the specific parameters (σ and E) should be reported in a table.
Intra- and inter-examiner reliability should be presented using ICC or Kappa values.
The rationale for the split-mouth design (paired measurements) needs brief statistical justification.
Clarify how missing data were handled.
Results
Some parts repeat the numerical data already presented in Tables 1 and 2; these should be condensed.
Since most p-values are >0.05, the discussion should highlight clinical rather than statistical relevance.
Figure captions should be more descriptive, for example: “Sagittal view showing the measurement of IAC diameter.”
Discussion
The text is overly long and includes some repetitive sections.
Certain paragraphs mix results and interpretation; they should be clearly separated.
Replace or complement older references (before 2010) with recent CBCT-based studies (2020–2025), such as:
Bifid mandibular canals: CBCT assessment and macroscopic observation
Pattern diversity and prevalence of bifid mandibular canal: a CBCT-based cross-sectional study
Prevalence and topography of bifid and trifid mandibular canal in Turkish Western Anatolia Population: evaluation of the inferior alveolar canal with CBCT.
Limitations
Mention that the retrospective design and 160 µm voxel size could affect measurement accuracy.
Observer-dependent variability should also be acknowledged as a possible limitation.
Conclusion
The section should be shortened and structured thematically (e.g., anatomical variation, clinical safety, sex-related differences).
Language and Style
Minor grammatical errors should be corrected (e.g., “was measured by” → “was measured at”).
Some sentences reflect Turkish phrasing patterns (e.g., “The canal mainly has…” → “The canal predominantly exhibits…”).
Repetitive phrases such as “In male subjects…” should be reduced for conciseness.
-
-
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.