I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript " Classic desmoplastic ameloblastoma: should it be a distinct subtype of ameloblastoma?". I commend the authors for their effort in conducting this comprehensive study. Below are my detailed comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Abstract:

• The abstract should include more specific data points, such as the exact recurrence rates and statistical significance of key findings.

Introduction:

• The introduction should more explicitly highlight the gaps in the current understanding of AD, particularly in terms of molecular and radiological characteristics. The authors mention that little is known about the topic, but what is already available in the literature? Read more about this point.

Materials and Methods:

• The methodology for mutation detection (e.g., Sanger sequencing) is described, but more details on the validation of the results (e.g., positive and negative controls) should be included.
• Sample Size Justification: The manuscript should include a justification for the sample size, particularly for the genetic analysis. Was a power analysis conducted?
• Describe in more detail how the histopathological analysis and reclassification of AD was performed, how many evaluators? Was calibration performed? Was a kappa test performed?
• Describe in more detail how the analysis of the markers evaluated by immunohistochemistry was performed, how many evaluators? Was calibration performed? Was the kappa test performed?

Results and discussion:

• The discussion of the molecular pathways is somewhat superficial. A deeper exploration of how these pathways contribute to the pathogenesis of DA would strengthen the manuscript.
• The discussion should more explicitly address the clinical implications of the findings.
• The limitations of the study should be discussed in more detail.

Conclusion:

• The conclusion seems to me, at the very least, hasty. Don't you think that more studies should be carried out to confirm the findings before proposing a reclassification of DA as a distinct subtype of ameloblastoma?

The authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' comments and suggestions. I recommend the manuscript for acceptance.