Necrotizing Sialometaplasia and Bulimia: A Case Report
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The diagnosis of Bulemia is problematic as it was not done by a psychiatrist and
it is based on a deceleration of the patient.
NS may be related to trauma but it can occur also spontaneously.
The call for oral exam in every case of Bulemia sounds immature at this stage as is the attempt to relate those 2 condition
The referenced above manuscript aims to characterize dentin hypersensitivity in allogeneic BMT. Their findings of increased prevalence of DH are compatible with a clinical experience of dental clinicians dealing with these patients. However, This is the first report in the literature that relates DH to the cGVHD late effect beyond the 100 days. The strength of the manuscript is in its originality and the novelty reporting of their funding. The study could benefit from including additional control groups such as patients on chemotherapy only and auotologus BMT patients. Further discussion of benefits of fluoride application to address these findings is suggested. The introduction section is too lengthy and should be shortened. The Introduction should emphasize the lack of literature on the topic and the rest should be moved to the discussion section. Conclusions should mention importance of fluorides to negate this condition
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
- The diagnosis of Bulemia is problematic as it was not done by a psychiatrist and it is based on a deceleration of the patient.
Response: The authors thank the Reviewers’ indication and apologize for not being clear. The diagnosis of Bulimia was performed by a Psychiatrist from the Psychiatric Department that followed the patient at the same University. The patient also admitted the episodes and the authors intended to be as descriptive as possible. The authors amended the text for clarity.
Changes: Line 95.
- NS may be related to trauma but it can occur also spontaneously.
Response: The authors thank the Reviewers’ indication. The information was introduced as requested.
Changes: Lines 29-30.
- The call for oral exam in every case of Bulemia sounds immature at this stage as is the attempt to relate those 2 condition
Response: The authors thank the Reivewers’ indication. It is not the authors’ objective to suggest an oral exam in every case of Bulimia, but to consider Bulimia in the process of etiological diagnosis of NS. The authors amended the text for clarity also following the direct indications of wording from Reviewer 2.
Changes: Line 189
- The referenced above manuscript aims to characterize dentin hypersensitivity in allogeneic BMT. Their findings of increased prevalence of DH are compatible with a clinical experience of dental clinicians dealing with these patients. However, This is the first report in the literature that relates DH to the cGVHD late effect beyond the 100 days. The strength of the manuscript is in its originality and the novelty reporting of their funding. The study could benefit from including additional control groups such as patients on chemotherapy only and auotologus BMT patients. Further discussion of benefits of fluoride application to address these findings is suggested. The introduction section is too lengthy and should be shortened. The Introduction should emphasize the lack of literature on the topic and the rest should be moved to the discussion section. Conclusions should mention importance of fluorides to negate this condition.
Response: The authors thank the Reviewer for the effort in Reviewing our manuscript. However, the comment above is completely out of our manuscript’s scope as we did not aim to characterize dentin hypersensitivity in allogeneic BMT. The authors can only interpret this comment as a lapse.
Changes: None.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well structured and written. Even though it is a case report, it can add information on a topic that needs further scientific studies.
I suggest accepting it, with minor revisions.
Please consider the following paper when you speak of differential diagnosis with malignant tumors:
“Necrotizing Sialometaplasia Can Hide the Presence of Salivary Gland Tumors: A Case Series.”
PMID: 30776173
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13066
Line 97: Please replace “Refers” with “She reported”
Line 98: what do you mean with “Normolytic physical appearance with slightly bleached mucosa”?
Please explain better. If you mean oral mucosa, it would be better to put this statement when you speak about intraoral examination.
Line 128: It is better to say: clinical characteristics of the lesion.
Line 188: it would be better to say: “… bulimia should be considered in the process of etiological diagnosis of NS.”
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
- The paper is well structured and written. Even though it is a case report, it can add information on a topic that needs further scientific studies.
I suggest accepting it, with minor revisions.
Response: The authors thank the Reviewer for the constructive criticism and all the effort put into the evaluation of our manuscript.
- Please consider the following paper when you speak of differential diagnosis with malignant tumors: “Necrotizing Sialometaplasia Can Hide the Presence of Salivary Gland Tumors: A Case Series.” PMID: 30776173 DOI: 10.1111/odi.13066
Response: The authors thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. The manuscript was introduced as reference for the differential diagnosis with malignant tumors as suggested.
Changes: Line 74, Reference no. 18
- Line 97: Please replace “Refers” with “She reported”
Response: The authors thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. The text was amended as suggested.
Changes: Line 97.
- Line 98: what do you mean with “Normolytic physical appearance with slightly bleached mucosa”? Please explain better. If you mean oral mucosa, it would be better to put this statement when you speak about intraoral examination.
Response: The authors thank the Reviewer’s query. The authors rephrased the sentence for clarity: “Physical aspect compatible with real age without alterations, and mucosa with a slight grade of palle skin.”.
Changes: Line 98-99.
- Line 128: It is better to say: clinical characteristics of the lesion.
Response: The authors thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. The text was amended as suggested.
Changes: Line 128.
- Line 188: it would be better to say: “… bulimia should be considered in the process of etiological diagnosis of NS.”
Response: The authors thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. The text was amended as suggested.
Changes: Line 188.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been significantly amended and is now suitable for publication
