In the present study, the definition of oro-antral communication/fistula (OAC) is mistaken because it defines the process as only a pathological condition. In fact, the term "non-pathological” should be included in the text, because, during the description of the condition, other events are reported, these beingwhich are non-pathological,; for example, the condition presented by the authors as most commonly encountered during maxillary posterior teethtooth extraction due to the anatomical proximity between root apices and the maxillary antrum. This procedure is trauma and not a disease condition that would cause communication with the maxillary sinus. Therefore, the definition should be that OAC may be related to a pathological and non-pathological condition.
In general, the introduction of this study presents itself poorly, with much information not precisely inincluded in the text, lacking relevant issues mainly in the description of the intervention. In addition to performing procedures without citation from other authors, or defining as a group experience, it would be convenient to explain the use of these procedures (surgical and non-surgical). These procedures can be isolated or combined for case resolution. The authors encourage the use of soft tissue flaps, bone grafts, and membranes. These orare not associated with antibiotic therapy and the use of nasal decongestants.
The authors used a good search strategy, but due to the lack of evidence aboutregarding the searchedsearch procedure, they should have included other databases.
Although it may be withwould benefit from a better description of the events correlated in the introduction, the format presented by the authors makes the text flowingflow, allowing a quick reading and highlighting the main aspects of the OAC.
Another point that drew attention was the realization of a Forest plot of comparison, using only the only article included in the review, and comparing pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) with buccal flap (BF).