comments on abstract, title, references: The aim of study is clear and the title informative and relevant. The references are relevant but not recent, many references old. Appropriate key studies are included.

Comments on introduction/background: it clear what is already known about this topic ,the research question clearly outlined and the research question justified given what is already known about the topic.

Comments on methodology: The process of subject selection clear and the variables defined and measured appropriately but It is better to specify the sex for patients and clarify in practice and size sample is few. The study methods valid and reliable.There is enough detail in order to replicate the study.

Comments on data and results: The data is presented in an appropriate way but the place is incorrect (Table 2 must be in the result) . Tables relevant and clearly presented but it is better added figure to pcr results. and found Categories grouped to clear results ( add age groups and according to sex make a table.Not clear about what is a statistically significant result and not clear about what is a practically meaningful result.

Comments on discussion and conclusions: The researcher did not mention what he reached first. The results are discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted. The conclusions have answer the aims of the study and the conclusions are supported by references and results.The limitations of the study are fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research.

overall comments: The study design appropriate to answer the aim. This study add ( the first study to report on the occurrence of HHV-8 in association with endodontic diseases).The major flaws of this article weren't statistically significant, age groups and sex comparison were not included and few samples.The article consistent within itself.