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
Dentistry
Full Version
Cementoblastoma Which was Associated with the Maxillary First Premolar: An Unusual Case Report
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Kiran G.
Assistant Professor, Department of Oral &
Maxillofacial Pathology
Govt.Dental College & Hospital, Afzalgunj,
Hyderabad. 500012. A.P., India.
Phone: 09885920145
E-mail: kiran.dentist@gmail.com
Cementoblastoma is a rare, benign, odontogenic tumour that tends to be associated with the roots of the mandibular first molars and which is seldom associated with the maxillary teeth. It usually affects young adults. We are reporting a case of cementoblastoma which was attached to the right maxillary first premolar, which was treated with the extraction of the tooth and surgical excision of the tumour mass.
Osteoblastoma, Cementoblastoma
INTRODUCTION
Cementoblastoma or true cementoma is a relatively rare lesion which arises from the odontogenic ectomesenchyme (1). It consists of proliferating cementum tissue with functional cementoblasts (2). It was first described by Norberg in 1930 (3). Cementoblastoma accounts for less than one percent of all the odontogenic tumours (4). It forms a large mass of cementum or cementum-like tissue on the affected roots of the tooth (5). We are presenting an incidental finding of cementoblastoma in a 28 year old male patient, which was discovered during a routine radiographic examination.
A 28-year old male patient came to the Department of Oral And Maxillofacial Surgery with the chief complaint of pain in the upper, right, posterior teeth since six months. The pain was a dull ache which was non radiating and intermittent in nature. The radiographic examination revealed an approximately three cm radiopaque mass which was attached to the roots of the right maxillary first premolar, which was surrounded by a radiolucent periphery. The adjacent canines appeared to be endodontically treated. As there was continuous pain with 14, we went for root canal treatment of the tooth, but after two months, the patient returned back with the same complaint. After obtaining consent from the patient, the affected tooth was extracted, the attached tumour mass was removed surgically and the specimen was sent for a histopathological examination.
Microscopically, the lesion revealed a dense, irregularly lamellated, hypocellular cemental mass along with sparse fibrous connective tissue. A final diagnosis of cementoblastoma was made and the case was followed up for a period of one year at three monthly intervals. The patient is normal at present.
Cemenoblastoma is considered as the only true neoplasm of cementum origin (6). In the recent WHO classification of odontogenic tumours, it has been included in the category of tumours of the mesenchyme and/or the odontogenic ectomesenchyme, with or without the odontogenic epithelium (4). Generally, cementoblastoma is seen in young adults in the second and third decades of their lives. Few reports have indicated that females were predominantly involved than males, whereas the present case was a 28 year old male patient (7). The review of the literature revealed that the mandibular first molar was the most common site for this lesion, whereas in our case, the lesion was associated with the right maxillary first premolar, which was a very unusual and a rare finding (8).
Pain and swelling are the frequent symptoms in patients with this lesion or they may be asymptomatic. Our case presented with pain, but he had no swelling. The tumour size radiographically usually ranges from 0.5 to 5.5 cm, the average size being 2.1 cm and our case showed a tumour of approximately three cm size (9).
Most of the cases reveal a well-defined circumscribed radiopaque mass which is confluent with the root of the involved tooth. The differential diagnosis for a periapical radio-opacity should include cementoblastoma along with osteoblastoma, odontoma, periapical cemental dysplasia, condensing osteitis and hypercementosis (10). It is differentiated from the osteoblastoma by its location in close association with the tooth’s root. The odontome is generally not fused with the adjacent tooth and it does not appear as a homogeneous radiopacity, thus suggesting the presence of multiple dental hard tissues. Periapical cemental dysplasia generally presents as a smaller lesion than cementoblastoma and it shows a progressive change in the radiographic appearance over time, being initially radiolucent, then a mixed lesion and finally a radiopaque lesion. Condensing osteitis lacks a peripheral radiolucent halo (11). In cementoblastoma, the outline of the root of the involved tooth is usually obscured due to root resorption and fusion of the tumour with the tooth, whereas in hypercementosis, there is an intact lamina dura (6). The characteristic feature of cementoblastoma, it being fused with the root of the tooth, can be demonstrated both macroscopically and microscopically (12). Grossly, a round to ovoid, wellcircumscribed mass of hard, calcified tissue surrounds the root of the affected tooth (13). The histopathological differential diagnosis of cementoblastoma includes osteoblastoma and osteosarcoma. It is differentiated from osteoblastoma by its pathognomic feature of the attachment of the tumour mass to the root of the affected tooth. The tumour presents as cementum-like tissue with numerous reversal lines (10). The present case had similar features. This lesion is differentiated from osteosarcoma by the absence of malignant features. The differentiation of the above mentioned lesions from cementoblastoma requires a correlation with the clinical and the radiographic findings (14).
As these lesions have unlimited growth potential, they are usually treated with complete surgical excision of the tumour mass along with extraction of the associated tooth (15). With incomplete removal, recurrence is common and it appears to be highest for those who are treated with curettage alone. Some authors advocate curettage after extraction to decrease the overall rate of recurrence (4). In our case, we extracted the affected tooth and the tumour mass was surgically excised. The follow-up revealed an uneventful healing.
Date of Submission: Mar 29, 2012
Date of Peer Review: Apr 19, 2012
Date of Acceptance: May 24, 2012
Date of Publishing: Jun 22, 2012
- 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