-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
,
Dr. Adit Srivastava 
,
Dr. Keshav K Gautam
,
Dr. Rahul Agrawal
,
Dr. Gc Shivkumar
,
Dr. Sarita Parihar
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The paper discusses an oral lesion that is usually located (more than 50% of cases) in the anterioror incisor/bicuspid region of the jaw. This lesion also displays a slight prediliction for the maxillary arch and almost two thirds of these lesions are seen in females. This case is a male over 40 who developes the lesion in the posterior mandible, not particularly a rare occurence; however, it is not the common clinical feature seen in this lesion.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
It is a relevant claim to point out to practitioners the possibility of this lesion occurring in areas that are less prone to developing this condition as well as various patient populations (ie, male, over 40)
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
There is no mention of this lesion being located in this area previously but there is documentation of it in Oral Pathology Texts.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
As stated previously, this lesion is not normally found in the posterior mandible but there are documented cases of it in the past and basic orl path texts indicated it may present in other areas.
-
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?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
NA
-
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?
Possibly a more comprehensive literature search
-
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?
It is an important point to remind practitioners that it is possible for lesions to occur in different patient populations that we may not think of as common.
-
Other Comments:
The article is informative and is a pertanent review of the lesion. it is not a "rare" occurence but nonetheless is something that some practitioners may disregard because of the location, patient gender, or patient age. So the article reminds the treating dentist to be wary of always catagorizing lesions into differential diagnosis by criteria such as where it commonly is found etc.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
General Dentist
- How to cite: Raymond G .Peripheral Ossifying Fibroma-A Rare Manifestation in Mandibular Posterior Region[Review of the article 'Peripheral Ossifying Fibroma- A Rare Manifestation in Mandibular Posterior Region ' by Parihar S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002611
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
No claims. The objective is to present a case of peripheral osifying fibroma
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
The tumor is nor uncommon. This case report does not add new knowledge.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
NA
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
NA
-
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?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
NA
-
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?
May be if the authors add some results based on immunohistochemistry, this case report will be interesting.
-
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?
No.
-
Other Comments:
This case report is irrelevant.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
I wrote a chapter on soft tissue lesions in a book "Oral and Craneofacial Pathology"
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None - How to cite: Ledesma-Montes C .On peripheral Osifying Fibroma[Review of the article 'Peripheral Ossifying Fibroma- A Rare Manifestation in Mandibular Posterior Region ' by Parihar S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002587
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
The authors aim in this article is to presnt a case of Peripheral Ossifying Fibroma
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
This would be great seminar clas in a dental school
Peripheral Ossifying Fibroma is an occassional growth which occurs exclusively on gingiva. It is a relatively common growth of gingiva and is considered to be reactive rather than being neoplastic. The treatment is surgical excision followed by histopathologic evaluation and follow-up.
None
No
No
None
Clinical associate professor