Late-Onset of Keratocysts in De Novo Mutation c.1347+1G>A on Intron 9 PTCH1- (NBCCS) – Diagnosis and Therapy

Late-Onset of Keratocysts in De Novo Mutation c.1347+1G>A on Intron 9 PTCH1- (NBCCS) – Diagnosis and Therapy

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Good

 

Comments: In the Title, “diagnostic” must be replaced with “diagnosis”.

 

Abstract & Keywords

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

A: Good

 

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 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 as coherent?

A: Good

 

Comments: The Discussion highlights the diagnosis and treatment of keratocystic odontogenic tumors (KCOT), providing relevant literature. It further points out that the surgical procedure enables the combination of minimized morbidity and a low recurrence of the keratocysts. Lastly, the Conclusion states the treatment options for syndromic and non-syndromic cases of KCOT.

 

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 length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? 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: There are few issues in the manuscript which are as follows:

·     In the Introduction, under Case Report, the 1st sentence, “Nevoid Basal Nevus syndrome” must be written as “Basal Cell Nevus Syndrome.

·       In Abstract, and Case Presentation, “47-year” must be rewritten as “47-year-old”.

·       Under Discussion, and Case Presentation, the subheading “Diagnostic” must be written as “Diagnosis”.

 

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report accounts for the diagnosis and therapy for late-onset keratocysts in de novo mutation c.1347+1G>A on Intron 9 PTCH-(NBCCS). This further adds that early diagnosis is required to prevent the late prognosis of the disease. This case presents an asymptomatic BCNS in a 47-year-old woman who was diagnosed with de-novo-mutation of the PTCH1 gene followed by odontogenic keratocysts as the late-onset symptoms.

 

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team 

 
 

Author Info

Corresponding Author
Manfred Nilius
Niliusklinik, Londoner Bogen, Dortmund, Germany

Article Info

Article Type
Case Report
Publication history
Received: Mon 07, Dec 2020
Accepted: Mon 21, Dec 2020
Published: Wed 30, Dec 2020
Copyright
© 2023 Manfred Nilius. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.GG.2020.01.06