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
Original article / research
Full Version
Osteological Analysis of Hard Palate in North Indian Skulls and its Forensic Significance: A Cross-sectional Study
Correspondence Address :
Amarbir Kaur,
Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, MMIMSR, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India.
E-mail: biramar18188@gmail.com
Introduction: Various therapeutic procedures, such as cleft palate surgery, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, nasopharyngoscopy, and nasogastric intubation, rely on the morphometric measurements of the hard palate. Additionally, it plays a crucial role in passive speech articulation. Therefore, understanding the morphological and osteological diversity of the hard palate holds clinical significance.
Aim: To assess the normal and aberrant morphology and morphometry of the hard palate.
Materials and Methods: The present cross-sectional study was initiated in December 2017 and completed in December 2021. It was conducted on 100 dry adult human skulls collected from the Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India. The palate was analysed to determine the mean palatal length, breadth, and height. Additionally, the palatal index and palatal height index were calculated. Different osteological parameters of the lesser palatine foramen, including its number, distance from the greater palatine foramen, palatomaxillary suture, and interpalatine suture, were measured. Mean, standard deviation, range, and p-value were calculated for the metric parameters.
Results: The mean palatal length, breadth, and height were 46.16±4.18 mm, 33.01±2.67 mm, and 11.06±1.88 mm, respectively. In the present study, 83% of skulls belonged to the leptostaphyline type, 10% to the mesostaphyline type, and 7% to the brachystaphyline type. The number of lesser palatine foramen varied from 0-2 on both sides, with predominance of a single foramen on both sides. The distances of the lesser palatine foramen from the greater palatine foramen, palatomaxillary suture, and intermaxillary suture were found to be 3.55±1.56 mm, 11.45±2.42 mm, and 17.57±3.06 mm on the right side, and 3.38±1.57 mm, 10.90±2.39 mm, and 17.47±2.99 mm on the left side, respectively.
Conclusion: The data provided by this study will be helpful in various disciplines of medical, dental, and anthropometrical sciences.
Brachystaphyline, Leptostaphyline, Mesostaphyline, Sexual dimorphism
The hard palate is a vital component of the skull, formed by the pre-maxilla, palatine processes of the maxilla, and horizontal plates of the palatine bone. It separates the nasal cavity above from the oral cavity (1) and has an arched shape with varying depth and breadth, being widest in the molar region. The posterior part of the hard palate contains the greater and lesser palatine foramina, with lesser ones located behind the greater palatine foramen (2).
The role of palatal morphology and morphometry in forensic dentistry is widely acknowledged. Due to its location within the oral cavity, the hard palate is resistant to damage during trauma, making it a reliable structures for identifying individuals in cases involving damaged or decomposed skulls (3). Skull morphometry is also significant in anthropological and forensic investigations to determine the age, stature, and ethnicity (3),(4).
Understanding the normal anatomical features of the hard palate is essential for procedures like nasogastric intubation, nasal pharyngoscopy, and related tools (5). Palatal morphometry is crucial for the treatment planning in orthodontic conditions, orthognathic surgeries, maxillary dental implants, and various other procedures, including cleft palate surgery (6). Precise metric parameters of the hard palate are also valuable in denture fabrication and prosthetic restoration for speech and normal functioning (7),(8),(9).
While previous studies have explored the hard palate, a comprehensive investigation of the lesser palatine foramina and their relationship to nearby landmarks is lacking (10),(11),(13). This study aims to provide morphometric dimensions of the hard palate, palatal indices, and examine the relationship of the lesser palatine foramen with adjacent structures. The data obtained from this research can serve as a baseline for future studies in anatomical sciences, dental sciences, forensic sciences, and anthropometric studies.
A cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of four years, from December 2017 to December 2021, using 100 skulls obtained from the Department of Anatomy at Government Medical College Amritsar, Punjab, India. Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee through letter number 5769 dated 23/06/17.
Inclusion criteria: Adult skulls that were non-pathological and complete in all aspects were included.
Exclusion criteria: While damaged or pathologically deformed skulls were excluded.
Procedure
Measurements were taken using a digital Vernier caliper with an accuracy of 0.01 mm. The following parameters of the hard palate were measured:
• Length: Distance between the orale anteriorly and the posterior nasal spine posteriorly (labeled as A in (Table/Fig 1)a).
• Breadth: Distance of the inner borders of the sockets of the upper 2nd molars (labeled as B in (Table/Fig 1)a).
• Height: Height of the palate from the line connecting the endomolaria (shown in (Table/Fig 1)b).
• Contribution of premaxilla: Distance between the orale and the posterior margin of the incisive fossa.
• Contribution of palatine processes: Posterior margin of the incisive fossa and posterior nasal spine.
• Palatine index: Calculated using the formula: Breadth/Length×100.
• Palatine height index: Calculated using the formula: Palatal height/Breadth×100.
The hard palates were classified into three categories based on their width: leptostaphyline (narrow), mesostaphyline (moderate), and brachystaphyline (broad). The palatal height index was also calculated, and the hard palates were classified.
• Into chemostaphyline (low),
• orthostaphyline (intermediate),
• and hypsistaphyline (high/deep) types.
The study also included the evaluation of non-metric and metric parameters of the Lesser Palatine Foramina (LPF). The number of LPF was observed and noted. Additionally, the following metric parameters were measured:
• Distance of LPF from the Greater Palatine Foramen (GPF) (distance between the anterior end of LPF and the posterior end of GPF, labeled as I in (Table/Fig 2).
• Distance of LPF from the palatomaxillary suture (distance between the medial margin of LPF and the point where the palatomaxillary and intermaxillary sutures meet, labeled as J in (Table/Fig 2).
• Distance of LPF from the interpalatine distance (shortest distance between the medial margin of the lesser palatine foramen and the interpalatine suture, labeled as K in (Table/Fig 2).
The collected data and measurements will contribute to the understanding of the morphometry and relationships of the hard palate and lesser palatine foramina. This information can be utilised in anatomical sciences, dental sciences, forensic sciences, and anthropometric studies.
Statistical Analysis
The collected data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 18.0 and excel 2010. Mean, standard deviation, and range were calculated for the metric parameters. A comparison between the right and left sides was made using the student’s t-test. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Total number of 100 skulls were considered. The mean length, breadth, and height of the hard palate, as well as the contributions from the premaxilla and palatine process, were measured and are presented in (Table/Fig 3). The mean value of the palatine index was 71.96±7.73%. The majority of the palates (83%) were classified as leptostaphyline, while 10% were classified as mesostaphyline, and the least common type was brachystaphyline (7%) (Table/Fig 4). In terms of palatal height, 66% of the palates belonged to the orthostaphyline type, 19% were hypsistaphyline, and 15% were chemostaphyline (Table/Fig 5).
The number of lesser palatine foramina varied from 0 to 2 on both sides. They were absent in 7% of skulls on each the right and left sides. Single foramina were observed in 90% of skulls on the right side and 91% on the left side, while double foramina existed in 3% of skulls on the right side and 2% on the left side. The distances of the lesser palatine foramen from the posterior end of the greater palatine foramen, palatomaxillary suture, and interpalatine suture were measured. The mean values of these distances were higher on the right side compared to the left side, but the difference was not statistically significant (Table/Fig 6).
In the present study, the mean length of the palate was found to be 46.16±4.18 mm. Comparing this with previous data, results of the present study were close to the results of D’Souza AS et al., (49.13 mm), Jotania B et al., (49.73 mm), and Rao MJ et. al. (49.87 mm) (10),(11),(12). The mean palatal breadth in the present study was 33.01±2.67 mm, which was close to the results of Rao MJ et al., (34.42 mm) but lower than the results of D’Souza AS et al., (40.4 mm), Jotania B et al., (37.75 mm), Shalaby SA et al., (38 mm), and Sarilita E et al., (38.68 mm) (10),(11),(13),(14). The mean palatal height in our study was 11.06±1.88 mm, which was consistent with the results of Shalaby SA et al., (11.5 mm) and Sarilita E and Soames R (11.8 mm) (13),(14). The mean contributions from the pre-maxilla and palatine processes to the formation of the palate were found to be 11.43 mm and 35.64 mm, respectively. This was similar to the results reported by D’Souza AS et al., (9.4 mm and 39.76 mm) and Jotania B et al., (9.62 mm and 40.11 mm) (10),(11).
In terms of palatal classification, 83% of the skulls in the present study were classified as leptostaphyline, 10% as mesostaphyline, and 7% as brachystaphyline. These results were in agreement with Sarilita E and Soames R (84% leptostaphyline) but differed from the results of D’Souza AS et al., (37.5% leptostaphyline), Jotania B et al., (70% leptostaphyline), and Rao MJ et al., (95% leptostaphyline) (10),(11),(12). Similarly, the classification of palatal height in the present study showed that 66% were orthostaphyline, 19% were hypsistaphyline, and 15% were chemostaphyline. Results of the present study were closest to Shalaby SA et al., but differed from the results of Sarilita E and Soames R and D’Souza AS et al., (10),(13),(14) (Table/Fig 7).
Regarding the lesser palatine foramina, the number of foramina varied from 0 to 2 on both sides. They were absent in 7% of skulls on each side, and single foramina were observed in 90% on the right side and 91% on the left side. Double foramina were seen in 3% on the right side and 2% on the left side. These results differed from those reported by D’Souza AS et al., (62.5% single foramina, 30% double foramina) and Jotania B et al., (0.83% absent, 48.34% single foramina, 38.33% double foramina) (10),(11).
The distances of the lesser palatine foramen from the posterior end of the greater palatine foramen, palatomaxillary suture, and interpalatine suture were measured in the present study. Distance of the Lesser Palatine Foramen (LPF) from the Greater Palatine Foramen, Palatomaxillary Suture, and Inter-Palatine Suture found to be 3.55±1.56 mm, 11.45±2.42 mm and 17.57±3.06 mm on rightside and 3.38±1.57 mm, 10.90±2.39 mm and 17.47±2.99 mm on left-side, respectively. The values were higher on the right-side as compared to the left-side, but the difference was not statistically insignificant. Unfortunately, no data could be found in the available literature for comparison. However, knowledge of the relationship between these foramina is important for clinicians performing procedures in this region to avoid complications (15).
Furthermore, the morphometric features of the palate have practical implications in forensic dentistry. The palatal and dental structures are protected within the oral cavity, making them less susceptible to trauma or heat-related stresses. This allows for straightforward identification of individuals even in cases of significant tissue destruction, enabling sex estimation and individual identification (16),(17).
Limitation(s)
This study was limited to 100 skulls due to the declining number of cadavers in anatomy departments. To obtain more valid results, a study with a larger sample size could be conducted.
The data provided by this study will be helpful in various disciplines of medical, dental, and anthropometric sciences. The results of this study differed significantly from other studies, which may be due to differences in ethnicity and geography. The metric parameters of the lesser palatine foramina showed slightly higher values on the right side compared to the left side, although this difference was not statistically significant. However, this information is important for clinicians performing procedures in this region.
The authors would like to sincerely thank those who donated their bodies to science, allowing for anatomical research and teaching. The results of such research can contribute to scientific knowledge and improve patient care. Therefore, these donors and their families deserve our utmost respect.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/66577.18882
Date of Submission: Jul 19, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Sep 28, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Nov 07, 2023
Date of Publishing: Jan 01, 2024
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? NA
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 19, 2023
• Manual Googling: Oct 19, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Nov 03, 2023 (12%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 6
- 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