Submited on: 13 Nov 2016 02:43:52 PM GMT
Published on: 15 Nov 2016 10:04:47 AM GMT
Treatment Options in Pseudo-Third Class Malocclusions
Posted by Mr. John Oliver on 21 Nov 2016 04:56:07 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    There are multiple viable treatments for the physical treatment of pseudo-third class malocclusions. This investigates the major available treatments.

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

    These claims are not novel. This is a review of multiple treatment options. This paper should look into the most advanced literature of the field to support its claims and build its argument.

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

    The argument is well-structured. It goes in a proper order of diagnosis, therapy, and treatment options, but after this the structure is disorganized. It is hard to differentiate between specific mechanical devices for treatment and holistic ideas/themes for treatment. 

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

    No results section. This would help if some pertinent results were included for each therapy.

  • 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?

    Protocol should be further explained. It would help if the reader or clinician could follow a series of steps to arrive at a proper treatment for the patient.

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

    The methodology is not clear. There should be some regulations, and treatment details for each option. More details are needed for each summary. This paper additionally needs more grammatical coorections.

  • 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?

    There are certainly more options to consider with this review paper. All of the available treatments should be mentioned, and most given more detail.

  • 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?

    Not unless it gave a detailed analysis for which therapy to choose. It must also receive support from the professional community before then.

  • Other Comments:

    Clearly explain manufacturers, producers, patents, success rates, and all additional clinical therapies for the malocclusions. More detail is needed in most sections about the options. 

  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:


  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:


  • How to cite:  Oliver J .Treatment Options in Pseudo-Third Class Malocclusions[Review of the article 'Treatment Options in Pseudo-Third Class Malocclusions: a Systematic Review ' by Fantasia E].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003334
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse