-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The claims are important
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Yes the claims are novel
-
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?
All evidences are present
-
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?
All areas are adequately explained
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes
-
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?
If more impressions were made by this technique it would be better.
it would be difficult to get more patients
-
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?
Yes
-
Other Comments:
No
-
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:
I am a prosthodontist
- How to cite: Mohammed S . Innovating the art of final impression making in restricted oral opening through the use of a sectional impression technique[Review of the article 'Innovating the art of final impression making in restricted oral opening through the use of a sectional impression technique" ' by Goswami R].WebmedCentral 2014;6(1):WMCRW003176
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
Main claims related to the innovative approach to treat a patient with microstomia which are explained properly in the publication.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Novel
-
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 they support properly
-
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 deviations
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Valid methodology
-
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?
Fine
-
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?
They are fine
-
Other Comments:
Related clinical pictures are less .. more of them can be incorporated
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
Yes -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Dhanasomboon S, Kiatsiriroj K. Impression procedure for a progressive sclerosis patient: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:279-82. McCord JF, Tyson KW, Blair IS. A sectional complete denture for a patient with microstomia. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:645-7. Lynch MA, Brightman VJ, Greenberg MS. Burket’s oral medicine. 9th Ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1994. p. 580. Cardelli MB, Kleinsmith DM. Raynaud’s phenomenon and disease. Med Clin North Am 1989;73:127-41. WebmedCentral
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Yes
- How to cite: Sikri A .Sectional Impression Technique[Review of the article 'Innovating the art of final impression making in restricted oral opening through the use of a sectional impression technique" ' by Goswami R].WebmedCentral 2014;5(10):WMCRW003115
The paper is aim to dissove one of the problems in the dentistry
Yes, although there are some others works in this field.
yes
yes
NA
yes it is a clear
NA
NA
All the references are ald and the autors should be updated.
Yes
No
None
NA