ABSTRACT AND REFERENCES

1. The abstract is well written with clear aim, methods, and conclusions.
2. Few references might have been cited incorrectly. Please find the details in their respective sections.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1. The introduction can be confined to the review of literature in relation to the objectives of the study.

2. The statements related to citation no. 2,3,4, 5, 6, 7 and 31 don’t reflect the finding of the reference article accurately.
   Reference no. 2: the article states: We conclude that interarch tooth size relationships are population and gender specific. Bolton ratios apply to white females only; the ratios should not be indiscriminately applied to white males, blacks, or Hispanics. Ref. no. 3: The article states: It demonstrated that intermaxillary tooth size discrepancy may be one of the important factors in the cause of malocclusions, especially in Class II and Class III malocclusions. Ref.no.4: the reference states: Individuals with Angle Class I and Class III show significantly greater prevalence of tooth size discrepancies than do individuals with Class II. Ref.no. 5 & 6: The author may amend the statement to improve the accuracy. ref. no. 5: For the anterior ratio, a statistically significant difference was found between the Bolton standard and the Class III occlusion group. For the overall ratio, statistically significant differences were found between the Bolton standard and the Class II occlusion group, and between the Class II and the Class III occlusion groups. ref.no. 6: The results of the study shows no significant difference in the incidence of tooth size discrepancies for the overall ratio and anterior ratio between the different malocclusion groups, except for the anterior ratio in class III malocclusion. Ref.no.7: The article concludes: There were no statistically significant differences among malocclusion groups; however, there were a large number of patients within each group who had discrepancies greater than 2 SD from the mean. the reference states a larger number of subjects with >2SD. it can be on the higher or lower side. it doesn’t mean higher tooth size ratios. (only higher side) Ref.no.31: The statement is confusing and probably inaccurate citation I could not find the full text. However, the abstract and title suggests, the study to focus on sexual dimorphism. No record of correlation between the arch form and the tooth size/shape.

3. Page no.2 Paragraph 2 line 8: "but found no a specific arch from", need language edit.

4. Please cite the following statement: “Few studies have explored the predominant arch forms and the prevalence of Bolton tooth-size discrepancy among Saudi patients.”

METHODS

The answers to the following questions can be added in the methodology to improve clarity on subject selection. • When was the sample collection conducted? • What was the age group of your sample? • How did you determine the age and gender of the subjects? • How did you evaluate the history of trauma? • Did you collect a patient consent? Models are from two different locations. University and private clinic..thus making selection bias. Appropriate sample size calculation part missing. Digital caliper details is missing. Only 10 pairs from 230 cast are re-tested for errors.

RESULTS

1. Table 1: To simplify the table, the democratic data could be described in a text and the distribution of variables in a table. In the column representing male/female population, it would be more appropriate to mention the percentage of the respective variable with respect to that particular gender population.

2. It may not be appropriate to describe the findings of the other studies (Bolton’s study citation no. 35) in the results of the current study.

DISCUSSION

1. The opening statement of the discussion looks out of order.
2. The sentence in page no. 6, paragraph1, "The current assessment of sagittal malocclusion is limited by the fact that sagittal molar relationship is insufficient for diagnosis of Class II or Class III malocclusion, and because other sagittal variables such as overjet and skeletal sagittal discrepancy were not evaluated in this study." is unclear and need language edit.
3. The message in the sentence of page no.6 and paragraph no. 3 " Arch form types were not related to the presence of tooth-size discrepancy. Therefore, arch form is likely determined by patient-specific genetic and environmental factors," sounds unclear may be inappropriate.

OVERALL

Overall, the study was well designed. it added new clinical findings of a specific ethnic group (Saudi population) to the existing data of the other population groups. However, the introduction needs revision to improve conciseness and accuracy. A few more details about the subject selection could be added to the methods. Overall negative results.The comprehension of discussion section could be improved.