Detection of the Temporomandibular Joint Fibrocartilage by Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal's area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for researchers?

A: Good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Good

Comments: ‘Summary’ has been renamed as ‘Abstract’. A subheading ‘Objective’ is added under ‘Abstract’.

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are the methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them coherent?

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion puts forth the strong association between detecting a fibrocartilage layer and the T1 water-selective excitation technique (WATS) sequence and the association between T2 TSE and PD TSE sequences. Further, the authors highlighted the reason behind the discontinuities observed in the FC layer by the T1 WATS, providing relevant literature. The Discussion also emphasized the current results with T1 WATS sequence which showed greater potential in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) for the diagnosis and follow-up of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Several limitations of the study are also discussed. The Conclusion suggests that T1 WATS sequence (3D SPGR) is the most reliable sequence for detection of the fibrocartilage layer of TMJ in patients suffering from temporomandibular disorders.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

Q: Is the paper's length adequate to the topic's significance? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: Few issues are found in the manuscript which are as follows:

·       Under ‘Results’ section of Summary, 2^nd sentence, “In human, were detected 98% of the fibrocartilages with T1 WATS sequence”…” is rewritten as “In humans, 98% of fibrocartilages were detected with T1 WATS sequence…”.

·       Under Introduction, 6^th paragraph, 1^st sentence, “For other hand, porcine cadaveric preparations are the best animal sample…”, the sentence must begin as “On the other hand, porcine cadaveric preparations are the best animal sample…”.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The research aimed to detect temporomandibular joint fibrocartilage through Magnetic Resonance Imaging in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The manuscript illustrates the overall methodology of the study conducted, followed by a demonstration of the results.  

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions or clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team