First, there is a conceptual inconsistency between the Introduction, the hypothesis, and the Results. The Introduction cites evidence suggesting increased bone thickness in cleidocranial dysplasia, yet the authors hypothesized reduced palatal thickness without providing a biological rationale. This contradiction becomes more evident because the study’s own findings showed zones of increased palatal thickness in the cleidocranial dysplasia sample. Because the RUNX2 gene primarily leads to impaired mineralization rather than predictable reductions in bone volume, a qualitative or mixed quantitative-qualitative assessment would have been more appropriate. A biologically grounded or 2-sided hypothesis would better align with both prior literature and the present results.

Second, the sampling grid needs a clearer explanation. The reported anteroposterior (0-24 and 4 mm increments) and transverse positions (0, ±2, ±4, and ±6 mm) correctly form a 7 × 7 grid with 49 points, but this structure is not explicitly described. It is unclear whether right and left measurements were averaged or treated independently. The phrase “covers 288 mm” is ambiguous; surface area should be expressed in square millimeter.

Third, reliability reporting needs improvement. The term interclass correlation coefficient is incorrect; the correct term is intraclass correlation coefficient. The intraclass correlation coefficient model and confidence intervals are not included.

Finally, statistical reporting would benefit from consistency. The Bonferroni-adjusted α of 0.005 is applied inconsistently, with P = 0.005 classified differently across sections. Clear decision rules and reporting of effect sizes would improve transparency.

Strengthening the biological rationale, clarifying grid design, improving reliability reporting, and refining statistical consistency would enhance scientific clarity and clinical relevance.