Thank you for the opportunity to review the present study entitled Unicystic ameloblastoma: a retrospective study on recurrent factors from a single institute database.
The study presents a large casuistic related to UA (unicystic ameloblastoma), a total of 132 cases. I have addressed below some points, which are relevant for study comprehension and improvement.
Introduction
Authors mentioned that the term “cystic ameloblastoma is more appropriate than UA and this is justified considering that UC can present multilocular radiolucency. My comments: UA can only be confirmed by evaluating of the surgical specimen (histopathology of the entire tumor). X-ray features, such as unilocular or multilocular, can contribute for its diagnosis, but they are not essential. Most of the references used are not current, they need to be updated. The term “cystic ameloblastoma” can cause some confusion to the reader, considering that solid ameloblastomas can present cystic areas. Please, I strongly recommend to use the term “unicystic ameloblastoma”.
Please, clarify the aim of the study in the last sentence of the introduction.
Methods
I see major problems in this section, please see below my comments.
How were the UAs diagnosed? Please, cite the reference used to consider UA. Were the tumors revised histopathologically? How is the total number of ameloblastomas? What is the percentage of UA?
Radiological features unilocular or multilocular must be used instead of unicystic or multicystic.
Considering that the methods can influence the results, I encourage the authors to revise accordingly the concerns above.

they adequately answered my queries