Management of Patients under Treatment with Monoclonal Antibodies and New Biological Therapies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor, 
dear authors,
In general well written manuscript about oral adverse reactions of biologics worth for publications but there are many imperfections:
 - there are many technical errors:
font and  references cited in text are not uniform
English should be checked
contribution of each author should be written

-Authors should define exact period/years which were included in analysis- 2005- till... 2019 or 2020

I am very sad and disappointed when I review a manuscript which is not written in accordance to instruction to authors. 
Reviewer

Author Response

Point 1: There are many technical errors: font and  references cited in text are not uniform

English should be checked contribution of each author should be written

Response 1: Thank you for your kind comments. Font and references have been reviewed and corrected in the manuscript. Also author contribution has been included.

Point 2: Authors should define exact period/years which were included in analysis- 2005- till... 2019 or 2020.

Response 2: Period of research has been detailed in material and methods.

Authors thank you for your kind comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This review by Basilio et al., aims to study different biologics, adverse events and dental treatments associated with the adverse events, its severity and resolution in oral surgery.  The retrospective analysis of the literature (62 articles) on patients who underwent biological therapies identified that some potential adverse events could occur in the oral cavity. 

Specific comments:

1. Introduction section: Please add citations to 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th
2. Material and Methods: Include a flow-chart that met inclusion/exclusion criteria for this study.
3. I suggest the authors to rewrite the paragraphs so that it would not look too fragmented. For example: Introduction section – 2^nd paragraph is one sentence; similarly, 1^st in discussion section consist of one sentence.
4. Study limitations: It is confusing that the authors consider unreported/unpublished adverse events as a bias. This is a review article based on published literature. The authors should focus on the available public data, so the bias described by the authors is nonexistent.  Please revise the study limitations accordingly.

Author Response

Point 1: Introduction section: Please add citations to 2nd, 3rd, and 4^th

Response 1: Thank you for your kind comments. Citations 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th has been included.

Point 2: Material and Methods: Include a flow-chart that met inclusion/exclusion criteria for this study.

Response 2: Flow-chart of recorded and included studies has been included.

Point 3: I suggest the authors to rewrite the paragraphs so that it would not look too fragmented. For example: Introduction section – 2nd paragraph is one sentence; similarly, 1st in discussion section consist of one sentence.

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. Manuscript has been reviewed and some paragraphs as mentioned has been rewrited

Point 4: Study limitations: It is confusing that the authors consider unreported/unpublished adverse events as a bias. This is a review article based on published literature. The authors should focus on the available public data, so the bias described by the authors is nonexistent.  Please revise the study limitations accordingly.

Response 4: Study limitations have been rewritten based on your comments.

Authors thank you for your kind comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I've read this munuscript with great pleasue and lots of scientific inputs.

Your materials and discussion are not just limited to jaw necrosis (MRONJ) which

broaden readers' spectra regarding complications associated with biologic therapies.

Congratulations !

However, minor spelling check and rephrasing are recommended:

1. Page 8:  "Among them, it can be observed that there are more cases of osteonecrosis in the jaw (83.58%) than in the maxilla,..."  I thought it was a misspelling of " lower jaw or mandible". 
2. Page 10:  "Hyperkeratotic lesions and dyschromia of the mucosa: Monthly reviews and bipsy in case of suspicion."   was also a misspelling of "biopsy".
3. Page 10: "Dysgeusia: Nutritional recommendations such as abundant consumption of liquids and cold meals; You can even reach changes in the medication previously agreed with the dentist."   I found it not quite understandable. May I ask you to rephrase it.

Author Response

Point 1: Page 8:  "Among them, it can be observed that there are more cases of osteonecrosis in the jaw (83.58%) than in the maxilla,..."  I thought it was a misspelling of " lower jaw or mandible".

Response 1: Thank you for your kind comments. Writing errors have been corrected.

Point 2: Page 10:  "Hyperkeratotic lesions and dyschromia of the mucosa: Monthly reviews and bipsy in case of suspicion."   was also a misspelling of "biopsy".

Response 2: Writing errors have been corrected.

Point 3: Page 10: "Dysgeusia: Nutritional recommendations such as abundant consumption of liquids and cold meals; You can even reach changes in the medication previously agreed with the dentist."   I found it not quite understandable. May I ask you to rephrase it.

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. Writing errors have been corrected.

Authors thank you for your kind comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx