Home » Reviews
Comparative Evaluation of two new non-compliance devices for the treatment of skeletal classes II and III malocclusions (second and third class resolver-S&TCR) and Herbst Appliance
By Dr. Francesca Muggiano , Dr. Andrea Quaranta
Submited on: 27 Nov 2013 11:34:24 PM GMT
Published on: 28 Nov 2013 05:35:12 AM GMT
 
Need to review the title specially Herbst appliance is not a new. Author mentioned two new appliance, why the tile at the end part is within Parenthesis. Bit cofusing
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 12 Dec 2013 01:48:06 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Herbst appliance is not a new.


  • 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?

    Only 7 references havr been used so far. Need to review and cite more literature based discussion.


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

    Two cases have been presented with lacking of figures. Need to present with complete record according to Orthodontic case presentation. Author can check the ABO guidelines.


  • 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?

    Device explanation is there.


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

    Need clarification.


  • 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?

    Proper way of presentation is needed.


  • 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:

    Please follow the guideline to present Orthodontic cases.

  • 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:

    11 years of Orthodontic practice.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Need to review the title specially Herbst appliance is not a new. Author mentioned two new appliance, why the tile at the end part is within Parenthesis. Bit cofusing[Review of the article 'Comparative Evaluation of two new non-compliance devices for the treatment of skeletal classes II and III malocclusions (second and third class resolver-S&TCR) and Herbst Appliance' by Quaranta A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(12):WMCRW002904
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.