Home » Reviews
Lower incisor extraction in an Angle class I malocclusion: A case report
By Dr. Francesca Muggiano , Dr. Ivana Giannantoni , Dr. Andrea Quaranta , Dr. Giulia Anastasi
Submited on: 20 Dec 2013 09:04:10 AM GMT
Published on: 21 Dec 2013 04:41:25 AM GMT
 
Review on Lower incisor extraction in an Angle class I malocclusion: A case report
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 23 Dec 2013 05:34:47 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Lower incisor extraction was the main claim. It is very much important to align lower anterior crowding.


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

    Claim is novel but in other sense can be aligned without extraction as still over jet is higher. Can do labial flaring and selective discing if needed.


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

    Context is not well organised. Even in the abstract there is abundant of mistakes.


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

    Its' a case report. Post treatment figures shows success but need to crop the figures appropriately before submission.


  • 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 applicable.


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

    Methodology is valid but treatment options need to discuss. Referencing started from No. 10, this is not a good way of presentation.


  • 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?

    Presentation should be clear enough.


  • 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. Abstract need to correct.

    2. Conclusion should be based on only results.

    3. References should use appropriately.

    4. Figures need to crop nicely.

    5. Discussion should be based on the problems and solutions.

    6. Materials and method section should be titled with case presentation.

    7. Final conclusion is extremely big.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/BJMS/article/view/3188

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    More than 11 years in practice.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Review on Lower incisor extraction in an Angle class I malocclusion: A case report [Review of the article 'Lower incisor extraction in an Angle class I malocclusion: A case report ' by Anastasi G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(12):WMCRW002909
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
 
 
We use cookies on this website to measure and improve performance. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.