The Title and Abstract: The title is relevant but, gives wrong information about study design. The study sample does not represent the whole Jazan population as it has included only those patients visiting the College of Dentistry, Jazan University. Aim is clear but, result and conclusions are not focused around the main objective of the study i.e, relation with khat chewing.

Keywords: Initial letters are uppercase.

Introduction: Sentence structure and wording like starting a sentence with ‘Also.’ Long sentences should have been broken down into two. Use of such words throughout the text which if eliminated would not have changed the meaning of sentences. It has been mentioned that this is a part of the published article entitled ''Pattern of Partial Edentulism and Its Relation to Age, Gender, Causes of Teeth Loss in Jazan Population,'' but the article has not been cited.

Materials and Methods: Sample size has been mentioned: 780 patients (489 male and 291 females) but has not mentioned how it was estimated.

Results: “Table/Fig” has been mentioned throughout the text. It should have been only “Table.” Difficult to read the tables as the heading is given at the bottom of each table. The heading of the tables is “distribution of Kennedy’s classes in relation to age, gender and Khat chewing,” but “non-edentulous” patients have also been included. It is not clear what is meant by “non-edentulous,” it is not a Kennedy class.

It has been mentioned in the introduction part that this is a part of the study previously published, but there is difference in the demographic variables of the two studies. This study mentions the total RPD patients who visited the clinic to be 780 but the previously published article mentioned the total number of RPD patients who visited the clinic to be 579. Distribution of khat chewers among different age-groups and gender should have been presented .

Discussion: "Kennedy's classification represents the most accepted classification and allows immediate visualization of the partially edentulous arch. Also, it enables a systemic approach and application of sound principles of denture design." This setence should fit in the background or methods section and is not an analysis of the result. Conclusion: It is just a repetition of summarized result and does not focus on the main aim shown by the title of the study.

References: References no. 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 are too old.