-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
To report a case of Calcifying Cystic Odontogenic Tumor.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
The claim is not new, but it is valid.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
Not apply.
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes.
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
Not apply.
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
Yes. It is necessary to report more cases of Calcifying Cystic Odontogenic Tumor.
-
Other Comments:
It is a well done manuscript and the case report is well presented.
-
Competing interests:
None.
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
One of the references is my chapter in the WHO Blue Book.
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None - How to cite: Ledesma-Montes C .Calcifying Cystic Odontogenic Tumor[Review of the article 'Calcifying Cystic Odontogenic Tumor: Case Report ' by Luderer L].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001988
-
Other Comments:
This study and report of a case is a comprehensive description about periapical granuloma and differential diagnosis of similar lesions occurring in the jaws. This study will expand and enlighten current knowledge about such lesions. The authors should be congratulated for sharing such material with us. However, for the sake of clarity for the reader, some minor changes are recommended:
1.In the introduction:
Please write: Periapical lesions resulting from pulp necrosis are among the most frequent pathologies occurring in the alveolar bone (Garcia et al, 2007).
2.Introduction in the second paragraph:
Please write: Thus, such lesion is a consequence of an infection.....
3.In the introduction, fourth paragraph:
Please write: The latter develop instead of the latter develops (the author should write in the plural as they are talking about periapical abscesses).
4.In he case report, third paragraph:
Please write: in the region of the basal and mandibular angle....
5.In the case report fourth paragraph:
Please write: "expansive to the lingual cortical and the mandibular base areas"...
6.In the case report, fifth paragraph:
please write: "Because the lesion was located lingually, the surgeon decided to use an extraoral approach, via the neck, until the affected region was reached".
7.In the case report, seventh paragraph:
Please write: Such evaluation revealed fragments of connective......
Please write: Additionally, numerous blood vessels, some of which engorged, were found. Areas of erythrocyte extravasation and bacteria colonies completed the panel.....
Please write: "The pathologist further added that , since the histologic panel was strongly associated with the endo-periodontal impairment of the mandibular right first molar, elimination of the infection area in the region and radiographic follow-up was highly recommended".
One paragraph before the discussion:
please write: The examination revelead that the lesion had regressed and the expansion had decreased, nevertheless it was not possible to evaluate if the bone had been repaired. Another computed tomography was taken following eight months and bone formation and repair were observed.
8.In the discussion
Please write 4 short paragraphs per page for the sake of clarity
In the third paragraph, please write especial instead of special
In the third paragraph, please write: "Traditionally, it has been suggested that periapical cysts can be differentiated in periapical radiograps".
In the same paragraph, please write: Conversely, a granuloma is supposed to present a diffuse, .......
In the fourth paragraph, please write: "The clinical use of cone beam technology can assist the differential diagnosis.....
In the same paragraph, please write: "Using computed tomography, a radicular cyst can be differentiated from a periapical granuloma, by a markedly lower density of the cystic cavity when compared with the granulomatous tissue"
In the same paragraph, please write: "This allows the clinician to decide whethe or not the surgery is necessary without waiting for the follow up period to assess.
"However, Estrela et al (2009) do not agree and they argue that....." -
Invited by the author to review this article? :
Yes -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None - How to cite: Molina O F."Calcifying Cystic Odontogenic tumor: case report" by Sergio E Cury[Review of the article 'Calcifying Cystic Odontogenic Tumor: Case Report ' by Luderer L].WebmedCentral 2012;3(1):WMCRW001428
-
Other Comments:
This article is interesting due to the controversy in the literature specifies to this lesion.
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
Yes -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Phd Professor in Radiology in two University.
- How to cite: Manhães Jr L C.Calcifying Cystic Odontogenic Tumor: Case Report[Review of the article 'Calcifying Cystic Odontogenic Tumor: Case Report ' by Luderer L].WebmedCentral 2012;3(1):WMCRW001420
-
Other Comments:
This is an interesting case report.
Despite the controversy about the classification of CCOT the authors should put the World Health Organization (2005) position -
Invited by the author to review this article? :
Yes -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
PhD and MSc in oral pathology
- How to cite: Freitas B S.Calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor: case report[Review of the article 'Calcifying Cystic Odontogenic Tumor: Case Report ' by Luderer L].WebmedCentral 2012;3(1):WMCRW001366
The main purpose of this paper is to present the case of a 16 year-old boy with a calcifying cystic odontogenic tumor.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes- This would be a great lecture at a dental school.
The patient presented with a history of pain in the maxillary left central incisor and in the maxillary sinus area. The authors state that the treatment is usually conservative and consists of enucleation with curettage for intraosseous lesions and local excision for peripheral lesions. The prognosis is good with only occasional recurrences.
None
No
No
None
Clinical associate professor