Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Case report
Full Version
A Simplified Technique to Treat Bimaxillary Protrusion using Micro-osteoperforation: A Case Report
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Anjali Sudhakar Kathade,
Postgraduate, Department of Orthodontics, Room No. 102, Sharad Pawar Dental College, Wardha-442001, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: anjalikathade001@gmail.com
In Asian population, bimaxillary protrusion is a prevalent malocclusion characterised by protruding and proclined upper and lower incisors, as well as increased lip procumbence. A 25-year-old female patient presented with a chief complaint of forwardly placed teeth and bimaxillary protrusion and required fixed mechanotherapy with all four 1st premolar extractions. The patient also desired that the treatment be completed in a short period of time. Since sliding or loop mechanics alone take longer to close extraction spaces, authors chose Micro-osteoperforation (MOP), a minimally invasive procedure used to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement. MOP involves drilling or perforating distal to the canine for en-mass retraction, causing the alveolar bone to release inflammatory cells that accelerate tooth movement. This non invasive technique was used for the treatment. The average rate of tooth movement in each quadrant was 1.7 mm per month. Taking the procedure into account, the patient reported no side-effects during or after drilling, but mild discomfort was felt. The entire space closure took four months. At the end of space closure, a Class I molar and canine relationship was preserved with normal overbite and overjet, with very minimal anchorage loss on the molars. An extraoral improvement in profile from convex to straight was seen. The treatment was completed within 14 months. The novelty of MOP includes faster treatment times and less discomfort during orthodontic treatment. However, like any medical procedure, MOP does carry some risks, such as infection or damage to surrounding teeth or gums. It is important to discuss the risks and benefits of MOP with your orthodontist before deciding whether to undergo the procedure.
Accelerated tooth movement, En-masse retraction, Non invasive
A 25-year-old female patient presented to the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics with a complaint of forwardly positioned anterior teeth. On extraoral examination, a convex profile and incompetent lips with facial symmetry were seen. Intraoral examination revealed proclined upper and lower anterior teeth, increased overjet of 6 mm, and a normal overbite of 2 mm. Class I canine and molar relations were observed on both sides (Table/Fig 1). The provisional diagnosis was Class I malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion. After cephalometric analysis (Table/Fig 2),(Table/Fig 3), a final diagnosis of Class I malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion was made, necessitating the extraction of the first premolars in both the upper and lower arch.
The treatment plan involved the extraction of the first premolars followed by space closure, which can be achieved through sliding mechanics, loop mechanics, or accelerated orthodontics. Due to the patient’s preference for a shorter treatment duration, accelerated orthodontics using Micro-osteoperforation (MOP) was chosen as the least invasive procedure.
Premolar extractions were done at the beginning of the therapy, followed by strapping the maxillary and mandibular arches with 0.022*0.028 slots (McLaughlin-Bennett-Trevisi MBT prescription). The first levelling and alignment wire used was a 0.016 inch long Nickel Titanium (NiTi) wire, followed by rectangles wires made of 0.016*0.022 and 0.019*0.025 NiTi. Stainless steel wires ranging from 0.019 to 0.025 inches were affixed to both arches to prepare for retraction.
Under local anaesthesia (2% lidocaine with 1:100000 epinephrine), the first two holes were made distally to the canines on the crestal bone, 5 mm and 8 mm apart, as indicated by the black arrows in (Table/Fig 4). MOPs were then performed using a bone screw measuring 1.6 mm in diameter and 3.0 mm in length, with the aid of an implant screwdriver device (Table/Fig 5). Canine retraction was continued using a NiTi coil spring exerting 200 g of force (Table/Fig 6).
Each quadrant saw an average tooth movement rate of 1.7 mm per month. The patient reported no side-effects during or after drilling, although some discomfort was felt during screw tightening (Table/Fig 7). The overall space closure was completed within four months, resulting in the maintenance of a Class I molar and canine relation was maintained with normal overbite, reduced overjet, and improved profile from convex to straight (Table/Fig 8). The treatment was completed in a total time span of 14 months.
As the patient was in the first trimester, radiographs were not taken. However, after a 6-month follow-up, no relapse was seen after the clinical evaluation.
Accelerated orthodontics is a type of orthodontic treatment that aims to reduce the treatment time required to achieve desired orthodontic results. Traditional orthodontic treatment can take 18-24 months or longer. Accelerated orthodontics claims to achieve the same results in a significantly shorter time frame, usually ranging from 3-9 months. Accelerated orthodontic treatment is achieved by applying more force to the teeth than in traditional orthodontic treatment. This is done through the use of innovative orthodontic appliances, such as vibration devices or MOP, which help stimulate bone remodeling and accelerate tooth movement (1). While accelerated orthodontics may shorten treatment time, it may not be suitable for all patients. If a patient is a good candidate for accelerated orthodontic treatment, an orthodontist must perform a thorough evaluation (1).
Accelerated orthodontics is a type of orthodontic treatment that aims to speed up the movement of teeth into their proper position. There are several types of accelerated orthodontics, including:
• MOP
• Propel orthodontics
• Wilckodontics
• Corticotomy-assisted orthodontics
• AcceleDent (2),(3),(4).
Each type of accelerated orthodontics has its own benefits and drawbacks, and the best option will depend on the individual’s situation and preferences. MOP is a minimally invasive orthodontic procedure that involves creating small holes in the bone around the teeth using a specialised instrument. These tiny perforations, which are typically 1-2 mm in diameter and 3-4 mm deep, stimulate the bone to release certain chemicals that accelerate tooth movement (1),(2),(5).
During the MOP procedure, the orthodontist will first numb the area around the teeth with a local anaesthetic. Then, they will use a special instrument to create the perforations in the bone around the teeth. The procedure is usually quick, and most patients report feeling minimal discomfort. After the procedure, patients may experience some soreness or discomfort, but this usually resolves within a few days (6),(7). MOP is typically used in conjunction with other orthodontic treatments, such as braces or clear aligners, to speed up the movement of teeth into their proper position. The procedure can be performed on both adults and children, and it has been shown to be safe and effective in numerous studies (8).
The MOP is a minimally invasive procedure that involves creating tiny holes in the alveolar bone surrounding the teeth to stimulate bone remodeling and accelerate tooth movement (9). This technique has gained popularity in recent years as a way to reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment, improve patient comfort, and achieve better treatment outcomes. In the present discussion, authors will explore some of the key aspects of MOP and its risks and benefits (10). Alkebsi A et al., analysed the available evidence on the use of MOP in orthodontic treatment. The review found that MOP can significantly increase the rate of tooth movement and reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment (10).
Kundi I et al., a systematic review and meta-analysis published in the journal Progress in Orthodontics in 2020, analysed the results of 16 studies on the use of MOP in orthodontic treatment. The review found that MOP can significantly increase the rate of tooth movement and reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment (11). Overall, the available literature suggests that MOP can accelerate tooth movement and reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment. However, more high-quality research is needed to establish the long-term safety and efficacy of MOP, as well as the optimal protocol for its use in clinical practice (12).
One of the main advantages of MOP is its simplicity and ease of use. The procedure can be performed chairside in a matter of minutes using a handheld device that creates microperforations in the bone. The perforations are typically 1-2 mm in diameter and spaced 3-4 mm apart and can be placed around the teeth that require movement (5). The perforations create a localised inflammatory response that triggers the release of cytokines and growth factors, which in turn stimulate bone remodeling and tooth movement (9). This process can reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment by up to 50%, depending on the severity of the malocclusion and the desired treatment outcomes [5,11]. Another advantage of MOP is its safety profile. The procedure is minimally invasive and does not involve cutting or removing any tissue. The risk of infection or other complications is low, and patients typically experience little to no pain or discomfort (6). In addition, MOP can be used in conjunction with other orthodontic techniques, such as aligners or braces, to enhance their effectiveness and achieve more predictable treatment outcomes (1),(5),(12).
Despite these advantages, there are some limitations and potential drawbacks to MOP that should be considered. While the risk of these complications is low, they can occur in some cases, especially if the perforations are placed too close to the roots or if the teeth are already compromised. In the recent study, MOP did not speed up canine retraction, but they did appear to facilitate root movement (13),(14).
Hence, MOP is a promising technique that has the potential to revolutionise orthodontic treatment by reducing treatment time, improving patient comfort, and enhancing treatment outcomes (15). While there are some limitations and potential risks associated with this technique, the benefits appear to outweigh the drawbacks in most cases (16). Orthodontic practitioners should consider incorporating MOP into their treatment protocols as a way to improve the patient experience and achieve better treatment outcomes.
Among the defined invasive techniques for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement and treatment times, MOP stands out as a minimally invasive, easy-to-use, repeatable, and efficient new method that can eliminate some of the disadvantages of surgery. In the present case, MOP accelerated anterior retraction in bimaxillary protrusion cases and did not affect molar anchorage. Although it is reported that side-effects such as pain or root resorption are not observed due to MOP, long-term studies are required.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/64358.18556
Date of Submission: Apr 02, 2023
Date of Peer Review: May 01, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Jul 17, 2023
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2023
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Apr 05, 2023
• Manual Googling: May 18, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Jul 14, 2023 (9%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 8
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com