The manuscript# ODI-08-23-12922 entitled "Photobiomodulation Alleviates Burning Mouth Syndrome Pain: Immediate and Weekly Outcomes Explored" does a great job of outlining the rationale for the use of low-dose light treatment for an important clinical ailment. The authors nicely outline their methodology and interpretation of their results. The use of PBM for pain relief is well demonstrated with its direct effects on neural pain pathways.

The overall conclusion of the 31-subject study is quite convincing. However, there are several issues that could be addressed to ensure appropriate interpretation and reproducibility of this work.
1. The VAS score terminology is unnecessarily confusing. Simply using a timeline VAS at T0 vs T12 would suffice.
2. Comparisons of pre and immediately after PBM treatments make sense. It is unclear if cumulative pre- and post-VAS scores are being presented.
3. A basal VAS comparison with the final VAS would be helpful.
4. Statistical significance is difficult to decipher. What time points were exactly assessed?
5. More careful PBM dose presentation is essential. Please document the number of areas in each subject and the total dose in each of them. It would be helpful to see if these correlate with the variation in analgesia responsiveness.
6. How was the sample size determined? Please indicate power analysis with the primary outcome used.
7. Further, it would be helpful to utilize a non-PBM archival control BMS data set to compare potential efficacy.
8. It is unclear how and why the particular PBM dose was chosen. This could be discussed better
9. The results, esp Figs 6-12 could be better presented with individual results subheadings.
10. In Fig 10, the Gender effects have a peculiar trend at 5th treatment. Please examine the individual confounders and elaborate accordingly.

My comments have been adequately addressed - Congratulations!

My comments had been addressed previsouly