Submited on: 16 Mar 2013 02:13:53 PM GMT
Published on: 18 Mar 2013 06:38:14 AM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    A report on two supernumerary teeth in the anterior maxillary region in a 14 year old boy


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Although the findings in the case are unusual, the classification of the supernumerary teeth is wrong. The impacted supplemental tooth appears conical in shape and more likely to be a mesiodens. Hence the claims are not entirely correct.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No


  • 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?

    An inclusion on the etiological mechanisms involved in the formation of supernumerary teeth would be more informative


  • 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:

    1. The manuscript requires greater attention to Grammar.
    2. Author has quoted 2 different prevalence studies, one under introduction and the other under discussion. It is best to restrict to one source and to the most recent information.
    3. Identity of the patient not to be revealed.
    4. No standard citation style has been used.
    5. The Intra oral Periapical Radiograph and Occlusal radiographs appear to have their left and right sides swapped or interchanged.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    Pediatric Dentist, Lecturer

  • How to cite:  Anonymous. A Case of Incisiform Supernumerary Tooth Along With a Impacted Supplemental Tooth In Anterior Maxillary Region [Review of the article 'A Case of Incisiform Supernumerary Tooth Along With a Impacted Supplemental Tooth In Anterior Maxillary Region ' by Gautam K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002687
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This article presents a case report of  boy with an incisiform supernumerary tooth and a supplemental tooth.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • 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?

    No


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No


  • 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?

    No


  • 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. However, it might make for an adequate seminar for dental students.


  • Other Comments:

    Any excess tooth compared to normal in deciduous or permanent dentition is known as hyperdontia. The prevalence of supernumerary teeth in permanent dentitions range from 0.5% to 3.8%. Radiographic examination is vital in locating supernumerary teeth.

  • 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:

    Clinical associate professor

  • How to cite:  Maloney W J.A Review of a Case of an Incisiform Supernumerary tooth along with an Impacted Supplemental Tooth in the Anterior Maxillary Region[Review of the article 'A Case of Incisiform Supernumerary Tooth Along With a Impacted Supplemental Tooth In Anterior Maxillary Region ' by Gautam K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002647
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The claims of the manuscript are wrong. the tooth identification, the diagnosis is  wrong. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No. 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No, The identification and diagnosis is wrong . 


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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. Rather it is misleading. It should not be considered for Publication . 


  • Other Comments:

    The supplemental tooth has been termed as incisiform and it is present palatally between 11 and 12 and not 21 and 22 as claimed by the author. Fig 2. 

    The english is very poor . Many gramatical mistakes. Literature search not done properly, presentation is poor. 

    The impacted mesioden is mis diagnosed as supplemental tooth 

    The figure 1 is not necessary and does not contribute to the manuscript or the case in any ways. 

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • 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:

    I am a Pediatric Dentist , Reader with 5 years of experience .

  • How to cite:  Sharma A .to report a case of incisiform supernumerary teeth along with impacted supplemental tooth in anterior maxilla. [Review of the article 'A Case of Incisiform Supernumerary Tooth Along With a Impacted Supplemental Tooth In Anterior Maxillary Region ' by Gautam K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002632
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    A case report


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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:

    The tooth seems to be a mesiodens along with a supernumerary tooth found incidentally.

    There is no need to show the Identity of the patient.

  • 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:

    Academician since 15 years

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.A Case of Incisiform Supernumerary Tooth Along With a Impacted Supplemental Tooth In Anterior Maxillary Region[Review of the article 'A Case of Incisiform Supernumerary Tooth Along With a Impacted Supplemental Tooth In Anterior Maxillary Region ' by Gautam K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002628
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    To report a case of two supernumerary teeth in the anterior maxilla of a 14 years old boy.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The olaims are not novel.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No, the authors are wrong. One of the extracted teeth is a mesiodens.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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. This paper contains wrong data that make it useless.


  • Other Comments:

    The authors claim that this 14 years old boy presented one incisiform supernumerary tooth and a impacted suplemental tooth in the anterior maxilla.

    Unfortunately, classification of both teeth is not correct, since the erupted teeth is not an "incisiform supernumerary tooth as the authors claim becauser according to fig. 2, it is an erupted  incisiform supplemental supernumerary tooth.

    Also, the "impacted suplemental tooth" is not as such. If we carefully review fig. 3, we are able to see that this tooth is located between the roots of the upper central iscisors. For this reason, this tooth should be classified as MESIODENS. Likewise, review of the fig. 4 reveals that this tooth presents a conical crown and its form is not similar to the incisors. For this reasons this tooth is not a supplemental tooth.

    As an additional comment I consider it i not necessary to publish the clinical photograph of the patient.

    I highly recommend the authors delete this case from the forum and re-write this manuscript according to the above suggestions since it is a very uneusual and interesting case.

  • 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 have two main articles: Frequency of supernumerary teeth in Mexican population. Salcido-García JF, Ledesma-Montes C, Hernández-Flores F, Pérez D, Garcés-Ortíz M. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2004 Nov-Dec;9(5):407-9; 403-6 and Pathological findings in a sample of Mexican pediatric patients. Clinical and radiographic survey. Ledesma-Montes C, Salcido-García JF, Hernández-Flores F, Garcés-Ortíz M. Minerva Stomatol. 2012 May;61(5):205-12.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .Review of a Case Report of Two Supernumerary Teeth[Review of the article 'A Case of Incisiform Supernumerary Tooth Along With a Impacted Supplemental Tooth In Anterior Maxillary Region ' by Gautam K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002621
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse