The present version of the manuscript is improved.
My comments are the following:
1. In the Abstract- results Line 75 with clinical expectations which was closer to the actual clinical diagnosis(same text in line 219). This statement is unclear and raises the idea of an unsure diagnosis thus it needs rewriting.
2. Introduction chapter: lines 88-89 which also made it quite difficult to accurately
describe the changes of lesions. This phrase is mismatched in context.
3. Line 93 at home and abroad. This should be removed.
4. Study design: line125 the real observation. The word real should be removed.
5. Line 141: "65 ≥and ≥18years of age;". What age mean?
6. Line 200: drinking refers to alcohol?
7. Line 211 "The RHU score is correlated with PGA and REU score" is contradictory to lines 220-221 "While NRS, OHIP-14 and REU score fluctuate greatly with varying degrees of alteration". Moreover, NRS and OHIP-14 do not evaluate the objective clinical aspects but carry a grade of subjectivity depending on the patients' perception Both NRS and OHIP-14 tests evaluate other aspects.
8. Tables 1 and 3 RHU1 is the first visit RHU?
9. Line 306 "more intuitive and objective"- remove more intuitive and add easier to apply/use in dental practice.
10. Line 314 replace "article" with research.
11. The Discussion chapter needs improvement based on the obtained results. Lines 270-274 should be moved to Discussion. You introduced BMI in Results but no discussion on it.
12. Line 283..why name it in the past?? One recent position paper of AAOM still recognizes it!!!: Cheng, Y. S. L., Gould, A., Kurago, Z., Fantasia, J., & Muller, S. (2016). Diagnosis of oral lichen planus: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology, 122(3), 332-354.
12. About PGA, can you explain/detail why choosing it? The reference Robinson, Kardos et al. 2012 is clearly in relation to psoriasis and cutaneous troubles. Or you mean this score physicians’ global assessment (PGA) score ranging from 0–4 points (0 = no clinical signs; 4 = extensive erosive/ulcerative disease; counted in intervals of 0.5)
with this reference: MONSHI, Babak, et al. Topical Cyclosporine in Oral Lichen Planus—A Series of 21 Open-Label, Biphasic, Single-Patient Observations. Journal of clinical medicine, 2021, 10.22: 5454.

Dear Authors,

The article is improved compared to the previous version. Following are my observations:
In the Abstract
-line 61 do define RHU abbreviation
-lines 66, 67 add words topical and general when refer to treatment outcomes of topical dexamethasone sodium phosphate and general hydroxychloroquine hydrochloride among OLP patients
In MM chapter
- line 141 still unclear the age interval: over 65 implies being over 18. The correct variant is between 18 and 65 years, not 4)65 ≥ and ≥ 18years old
-line 146 add the word Other immune system diseasesTable2. T
In Results chapter
- line 258 Table 2 should be entitled The relationship between treatment efficacy....(Add the word treatment)
In Discussion chapter
- lines 274-276 The English language quality is low. The statement needs revision.
- line 301. Do the authors refer to the extent of treatment as the treatment outcome? The idea that this score carries good objectivity compared to the evaluation of symptoms matter should be emphasized.
-line 315 :the statement should suggest another author's opinion as the research does not include it: Hormone levels and immune conditions in the female usually had changed significantly
Figure 2: C: The photomicrograph of oral lichen planus. The correct description is Histopathological image of oral lichen planus ( Hematoxylin-eosin coloration)
Best regards!

Dear Authors,
As all my comments were addressed in the revised version, I recommend accepting the manuscript.
Best regards!