Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Surgical Treatment Of Maxillary Odontogenic Myxoma With Conservative Enucleation And Curettage: A Case Report” described the conservative surgical management of a maxillary odontogenic myxoma in a 27-year-old male patient treated with enucleation and curettage. The case is generally well presented, with clinical, radiographic, surgical, and follow-up information included. The manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revisions to improve clarity, presentation, and reporting completeness.

1. The author described the events included the onset of swelling, previous dental treatment, aspiration puncture, referral, biopsy, surgery, and follow-up. If the author could give a brief timeline table which would make the clinical course easier to follow, especially for a case report.
2. The authors state that the lesion was small and treated conservatively by enucleation and curettage. It would be helpful to add one or two sentences explaining why this approach was preferred over more aggressive surgery or adjunctive methods in this specific patient.
3. The CBCT and intraoperative images are useful, but the figures would benefit from clearer arrows or labels indicating the lesion margins, cortical expansion, surgical cavity, and postoperative bone formation.
4. Since the diagnosis was confirmed histopathologically and the manuscript describes spindle-shaped and stellate cells in a myxoid stroma, a representative microscopic image with magnification and stain information would strengthen the diagnostic evidence.
5. Please check references for duplication and formatting. Some references are repeated

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

hello
dear authors, thank you very much for thins interesting case report
myxoma is somehow a challenge, where the approach towards this lesion, its scope and later outcomes are greately affected by its shape, Location and adjacent structures types
the authors presnted a quite interesting case report
abstract:
its well structures, dussifient for a case report
aim is clear, case is presented in satisfactory manner
key wrods are ok
introduction
is ok, but its missing some differentia diagnostics data
missing the role of panx and cbct in evaluation - please add new citaiton + text
authors should conclude with what honey comb should be differnetiated?
what Other radiological patterns can be seen in OM?
each OM might cause some problems with early diagnostics, why
should a biopsy be performer or rather a one step enucleation with bone ostectomy?
case:
its nicely presented
authors should add what are patients further steps:
should the patient be only monitored, or perhaps scheduled for bone reconstruction and implants?
or patient doesnt want surgery just observation?
did the authors took some specimens as margins to establish its clear resection scope?
where is the histopathological specimen micro-photograph and why its not included?
was in this case a control ct, cbt or MR conducted after some time? what is the result?
discussion
should be improved by more case-citation reports on surgical appraoches + results of those
authors should clarify stufy limitations: ...please add
references
should be improved + add a/s as mentioned above 
thank you
paper has a potential
please improve 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor, dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

I appreciate the author’s efforts to elaborate this report that present the case of a 27 years old patient that was diagnosed with a maxillary odontogenic myxoma (2,3/1,7 cm). The approach was conservative with surgical enucleation and curettage. The article describe the clinical presentation, tomography imaging and the surgical management, as well as short-term postoperative evolution.

 

To further improve the quality of the study, the reviewer would like to offer some suggestions:

1. The authors report no recurrence after 10 months postoperatively, but the recurrence potential should be considered longer. The current follow-up period may be too short for supporting the effectiveness of conservative management. Authors are encouraged to acknowledge this limitation in the Discussion section and moderate the tone regarding the efficacy of the procedure.
2. The authors can present arrows or markers indicating the lesion margins, and orientation on the figures, where adequate.
3. Some clinical comorbidities were described in the case presentation (atopic dermatitis, COVID-19 infection, possible high-dose corticosteroid medication, and dental infections). The potential relevance to current diagnosis of odontogenic myxoma can be discussed if relevant.
4. The manuscript could also benefit from a brief introduction of possible etiological factors or mechanisms for development of odontogenic myxoma.
5. The pathology findings are well described and support the diagnosis, but the inclusion of representative histopathological images would significantly enhance the value of this manuscript. Histological pictures at different magnifications could contribute to the authenticity of this report and better illustrate the main microscopic characteristics of odontogenic myxoma.
6. Some references seems to be duplicated: 7 and 14 respectively 8 and 13.

I hope this review proves constructive and help to the further improvement of the manuscript. The suggestions provided are not mandatory; the authors are encouraged to implement those they find reasonable and valuable.

I appreciate the authors efforts.

With respect and consideration,
Reviewer.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

paper is improved

thank you

perhaps still missing a histopathology and its decsription but its better

thank you