Thank you for your contribution. The findings are interesting and worth to be published. The method used was relevant and technically correct, there are control group and statistical analysis tests together with the reliability test have been used properly.

I suggest to reedit the manuscript and might give some suggestions:

Abstract:
1) The are several typos (ex. kaht)
2) Add the word respectively after mentioning the proportion of QC and NQC.

Background:
1) At the last paragraph, try to highlight the main aim and the additional contribution of this study compared to previous studies.

Methods:
1) The first paragraph was talking about ethical approval not the study design as mentioned in the subheading.
2) Cite the previous study that you used in calculating the sample size and Fix the brackets error.
3) The subheading ‘CBCT examination’ is not suitable with the paragraph below that explained the imaging technique only.
4) It would be better to include the reliability tests in a separated section or in the statistical analysis section not in the image analysis part.
5) Image analysis section should have separated subheadings for both quantitative and qualitative method to be more organized and easier to read.

Results:
1) Avoid repetitions (sample size already mentioned in the method section).
2) Try to include subheadings for each part of the results.
3) Standardize the presentation method of the results (example: and or vs.; p value location ex…).

Discussion:
1) The value of the study has been highlighted in the discussion section but it should be in the background as I have already mentioned.
2) Modify the font colour mistake of the word well-known.

Table 3, 4 and 5;
Write the measurements definition (mean, median, %).

I have reviewed the revised manuscript entitled: "Cone beam computed tomography findings in temporomandibular joint of chronic qat chewers: Dimensional and osteoarthritic changes". The authors have responded to all comments and corrections properly.