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
Use of Free Gingival Graft and PRF to Increase the Width of the Attached Gingiva: A Novel Approach
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Deepika Ajit Masurkar,
Postgradate Student, Department of Periodontology, Sharad Pawar Dental College, Sawangi, Wardha, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: dipika.masurkar@gmail.com
Inadequate width of attached gingiva can lead to difficulty in maintaining oral hygiene, can cause recession and if the patient is undergoing orthodontic treatment the bands and brackets might get engrossed in the buccal mucosa. Therefore, increasing the width of attached gingiva is necessary. Here, authors presents a case of 19-year-old female patient who was referred from the Department of Orthodontics for impinging of bands into gingiva which was identified to be because of in adequate width of attached gingiva. Horizontal incision was given at mucogingival junction from tooth 34 to 44 region. Full-thickness flap was raised till the required vestibular depth recipient site is required. Free Gingival Graft (FGG) of size 15×10 mm in size was harvested from left palatal mucosa from distal to 24 to mesial to 26 region. Harvested FGG was sutured from 32 to 42 region in the recipient site. Platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF) membrane was prepared using patients own blood and this membrane was sutured at 33 and 43 region at the recipient site. An aluminium foil was kept at the donor site and above the membrane at the recipient site on which periodontal pack was given. After 21 days of healing, the width of attached gingiva increased from 2 mm at baseline to 8 mm. According to Visual Analog Scale (VAS), mild pain was felt by the patient and no difference in the colour was seen at both recipient and donor site at 21 days after surgery. Use of FGG and PRF helps to achieve improved results for increase width of attached gingiva.
Attached gingiva width, Platelet rich fibrin, Vestibuloplasty
A 19-year-old female patient was referred to the Department of Periodontics from the Department of Orthodontics for impinging of crimpable hooks into gingiva in 31, 32, 41 and 42 region (Table/Fig 1). She did not have any significant medical history or any habits of consumption of alcohol or smoking. There was no significant extraoral findings. Patient was undergoing orthodontic treatment for correction of irregularly placed teeth. On intraoral examination, the width of attached gingiva in 31, 32, 41 and 42 region was 2 mm, respectively. Furthermore, the impinging of crimpable hooks into gingiva was identified, because of inadequate width of attached gingiva. Treatment plan decided to be followed was to increase the width of attached gingiva using free gingival graft.
Treatment plan: After the phase I therapy, all the necessary oral hygiene instructions were given with emphasis on proper plaque control. Informed consent of the patient was obtained, surgical procedure was explained to the patient. Under all aseptic condition and precautions and under local anesthesia (4),(5). Horizontal incision was given at mucogingival junction from 34 to 44 region. Full thickness flap was raised till the required vestibular depth at the recipient site (Table/Fig 2). An aluminum foil was used to make a template with the size of the recipient bed and transferred to the palate. Initial incision of 2 mm depth was given on all four sides of the aluminium foil. Free Gingival Graft (FGG) of size 15×10 mm was harvested from left palatal mucosa from distal of 24 to mesial of 26 region 3 mm away from the gingival margin (Table/Fig 3). The harvested FGG was compressed and sutured at the recipient site i.e., from 32 to 42 region using absorbable thread 6-0 (Vicryl-Ethicon, Johnson and Johnson) (Table/Fig 4). An aluminium foil was kept at the palatal donor site on which periodontal pack was given and 4-0 silk threads suture was placed to promote haemostasis and stabilisation of blood clot and periodontal pack (Table/Fig 5). Platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF) membrane was prepared using patients own blood of a desired size and placed over 33 and 43 region and sutured using 6-0 absorbable suture at the recipient site (Table/Fig 6). An aluminium foil was kept above the FGG and PRF membrane at the recipient site so as to place periodontal pack over it (Table/Fig 7),(Table/Fig 8).
Postoperative medications given was 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash two times a day for 4 weeks. Aceclofenac 100 mg and paracetamol 325 mg was given twice a day for 5 days and oral hygiene instructions were given to the patient.
After 14 days, the sutures were removed from the donor and recipient locations. Patient did not experience any postoperative pain or discomfort. There was uneventfull healing at both the surgical site. After 14 days of healing the width of attached gingiva increased from 2 mm at baseline to 8 mm at site where FGG and PRF membrane was placed (Table/Fig 9),(Table/Fig 10). According to visual analog scale, mild pain was felt by the patient and slight difference in the colour was seen at both recipient and donor site at 14 days after surgery. Complete surface healing was observed at 21 days after surgery (Table/Fig 11).
Attached gingiva is defined as the tissue between the mucogingival junction and the projection on the external gingival surface of the most apical portion of the gingival sulcus or the periodontal pocket (1). The associated gingival width is genetically determined, varies in different parts of the dentition, and can fluctuate during life (2). The presence of a adequate amount of gingiva has long been seen to be a cornerstone for periodontal health. It is more prominent in the incisor area 3.5-4.5 mm in the anterior maxilla 3.3-3.9 mm in the anterior mandible. In the posterior tooth area it is narrower, 1.9 mm in the maxilla premolar and 1.8 mm in the mandible premolar (2). Attached gingiva width is small in newly erupted permanent teeth and gradually increases as permanent teeth emerge. Adequate zone of attached gingiva is always a matter of discussion. As it affects gingival health in various ways, subgingival plaque development is aided by an insufficient zone of attached gingiva. If the patient is undergoing orthodontic treatment, the bands and brackets might get engrossed in the buccal mucosa (3). Therefore, it is necessary to increase the width of attached gingiva.
Vestibuloplasty is a procedure for hard and soft tissue augmentation in the vestibular area. There have been several procedures documented for increasing the quantity of keratinised mucosa and deepening the vestibulum (vestibuloplasty). The free gingival graft is a common procedure for vestibuloplasty (1),(2). It was initially described by Bjorn H, and it is commonly utilised because to its stable and predictable results (4). It has a number of drawbacks, including the requirement for a second surgical area, a longer healing process on the palate, and cosmetic outcomes that are impaired. Several grafting materials, including autogenic, allogenic, xenogenic, and alloplastic, have been offered as alternatives for the free mucosalpalatal graft in recent decades, with varying degrees of success (5),(6). Currently used substitute for FGG is Acellular Dermal Matrix Allograft (ADMA) which is derived from donated human skin. But the supply of ADMA is limited supply and is costly. Temmerman A et al., evaluated the use of the Leukocyte and Platelet Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) membranes in increasing the width of the Keratinised Mucosa (KM) around implants (7). Authors concluded that use of L-PRF can increase the width of KM around implants. Kothiwale S and Ajbani J, increased the width of attached gingiva using Chorion Membrane (CM) along with PRF membrane and concluded that CM and PRF can be effectively incorporated to increase the width of attached gingiva and depth of vestibule (8). Singal A et al., evaluated FGG procured from different anatomical sites to increase the width of attached gingiva (3). Authors concluded that FGG is a viable and effective modality for increasing the width of attached gingiva and can be procured from sites other than palate.
For the development of an autologous fibrin matrix, PRF preparation is a simple and affordable method. PRF includes a variety of growth factors, including Platelet Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor, vascular endothelium growth factor, and epidermal growth factor and it acts as a scaffold for epithelial cell migration and proliferation (9). PRF is easy to use biological patient derived biomaterial, which can be used in daily practice on a routine base (7). The PRF membrane has got the properties of adhesion by virtue of fibrin glue and it has got sufficient mechanical strength that play a role in preventing infection and inflammation on both the surgical and donor sites of the operative field (10).
The Platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF) membrane approach for vestibuloplasty indicated that it might be a good alternative to other extensively used treatment options in practice. The study period was too short to fully assess the benefits and drawbacks of the PRF membrane grafting material in this innovative variation of the vestibuloplasty procedure. Despite this, both FGG and PRF showed good healing and aesthetic outcome. To compensate for the shrinkage of FGG and PRF can be used along with it. Using both together there was adequate increase in width of attached gingiva. Furthermore, controlled studies with adequate sample size should be undertaken to evaluate and compare the outcome of PRF with other grafting material to validate its application as a substitute material.
Authors acknowledge the immense help received from the scholars, whose articles are cited and included in references to this manuscript. The authors are also grateful to authors/editors/publishers of all those articles, journals and books from where the literature for this article has been reviewed and discussed.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/58256.16984
Date of Submission: Jun 04, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Jun 21, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Jul 13, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022
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: Jun 17, 2022
• Manual Googling: Jun 20, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Jul 12, 2022 (15%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
- 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