Sir,We acknowledge that the language in the article suggests that Marchal was the first to introduce sialendoscopy; however, that was not the suggestion. The author's comments on the prior history of the origins of the procedure and its wide applicability to the European countries in noted. Its widespread incorporation into residency didactics and teaching is still an evolving feature in North America.[1]The authors on one hand talk about the widespread use of the procedure and various published articles and then on the other hand talk about sialendoscopy as an experimental procedure for the purposes of an informed consent. In our experience and based on world surgical experience, we do not consider sialendoscopy to be experimental. The safety and the utility of the procedure for diagnostic and therapeutic indications pertaining to non-neoplastic diseases is well established. The study as mentioned in the methods section is a retrospective review. An informed consent was taken for clinical purposes and pros and cons were appropriately discussed. A research consent, as the authors allude to, would be more applicable if this were a prospective study with an objective of establishing unknown end points. In addition, “retrospective” studies are a validated form of research that are extremely valuable in situations where the disease process or surgical procedure is rare and does not permit large prospective randomized studies or where there is paucity of literature related to a particular intervention.The description of the intraoral device to keep the mouth open is noted. The appropriate name for the device is a mouth prop and not a dental splint. We thank the authors for correcting this oversight and also for pointing out the error in referencing within the text.