-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
To present two cases of Aggressive Hyperplastic Dental Follicle.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No. The reported cases are not Aggressive Hyperplastic Dental Follicle. These cases are dentigerous cysts.
-
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.
-
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?
Not apply.
-
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?
Wrong diagnosis.
-
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?
Never. It should be deleted from the web page.
-
Other Comments:
It is a classic manuscript descibing two cases with a completely wrong diagnosis. The repoted cases are clasisc examples of dentigerous systs and not Aggressive Hyperplastic Dental Follicle. The authors clearly show in their photomicrographs that the cavities were lined by epithelium and for this reason they are not Aggressive Hyperplastic Dental Follicles. This manuscript never should be published.
-
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 am co-author of the WHO Blue Book on Head and Neck Tumours.
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None - How to cite: Ledesma-Montes C .Aggressive Hyperplastic Dental Follicle. A wrong Diagnosis.[Review of the article 'Aggressive Hyperplastic Dental Follicle: Report of a Bilateral Case. ' by Molina O].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001987
-
Other Comments:
The importance of this article is directly related to the case being bilateral.
-
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:
DDS, MSC, PhD in Radiology.
- How to cite: Manhães Jr L C.Aggressive Hyperplastic Dental Follicle: Report of a Bilateral Case.[Review of the article 'Aggressive Hyperplastic Dental Follicle: Report of a Bilateral Case. ' by Molina O].WebmedCentral 2012;3(1):WMCRW001421
The main purpose of this paper is to present the case of a form of aggresive bilateral hyperplastic dental follicle.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
It would be a very interesting presentation at a dental school.
The lesion examined in this paper may enlarge if allowed to develop unchecked. There are many etiologic factors associated with this phenomenon. The cause is often difficult to diagnose. The dentigerous cyst should be included in the differential diagnosis.
None
No
No
Clinical Associate Professor